On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:57:05 +0000, Bill M wrote:
> Why are religionists so afraid of and resentful of atheists?
I do not know that this is true, therefore I cannot contribute to "why".
> Why would they
> never even consider voting for an atheist for political office?
Such a person has abandoned neutrality and will bring his or her
"religion" to the office. A person that is neutral with religion cannot
so easily be identified. Only when a person conspicuously abandons
neutrality can we say that such person is "atheist".
> Atheists do not physically attack religionists,
This claim does not seem to be true. In this forum, atheists, especially
of the BAAWA flavor, are very rude. Whether that leads to physical attack
I cannot say, but it would seem to be a precursor.
> Why do they not see that atheism
> is a reasonable and somewhat more logical belief than religion?
You may be using the word "logical" in a way that I do not understand.
Just as many types of religion exist, so too do many kinds of atheism,
some more palatable than others.
> Why isn't
> there more intelligent discourse between religionists and atheists?
I do not know that there is not; however, you don't see it HERE. I have
enjoyed a couple of weeks of intelligent discourse with one atheist; his
stand is rational and reasonable; so is mine -- I have different evidence,
and the evidence makes the difference. I cannot give you that evidence,
but I have it, and it influences my judgment.
> Atheism is the lack of belief in Gods.
I am pleased to see that this is what it means to you. As you can see, it
means quite a bit more to others.
> This is a reasonable position because
> there is NO
> objective verifiable reproducible evidence for the existence of any
Gods.
Bad logic based on an untestable premise. The logic presumes that
god-evidence can be verified, reproduced and is objective. I agree that
no God exists that produces objective, verifiable, reproducible evidence.
If this is the only kind of God you are interested in, then we have
nothing to discuss. If you are open to the possibility that God is
self-willed and will reproduce evidence if and only if it pleases him to
do so, then we might have something to write about.
> No
> religionist has ever produced objective verifiable reproducible evidence
of
> their Gods ACTUAL existence. If they did, atheists would disappear over
> night and join some religion!
True. Not true.
The world is proven round and yet we have a flat earth society. Many
people believe man never went to the moon, but the proof is pretty solid
-- there's now a laser retro-reflector on the moon that was not there
boefore it was placed.
Atheists, of the "strong" kind (BAAWA) choose to disbelieve. No one has
ever revealed to me what *kind* of proof would be acceptable. Others have
suggested that if a glowing man 10 feet tall suddenly appeared, you'd look
for the stage crew. More likely the bible was correct in calling us in
the image of God, in which case, God could be standing nearby and you
would not know it -- and yet, you would have your proof. What does it
take?
I think most atheists DO believe in God, and *only* that God can present
himself to be believed. There's no telling what would happen if a
Catholic-God-Disbeliever encountered Krishna -- his "paradigm" of God is
not met by Krishna. Atheists, most of them, nearly all that are here,
have a paradigm and it is THAT paradigm that must be proved, but it cannot
be proved and we all know it -- hence, bad logic.
Michael
|
