On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:54:55 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>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".
I don't think that even remotely answers the question.
>
>
>> 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.
That's a giant stretch. Rude in a newsgroup has no connection to
physical violence, and it was "physically attack". The blunt responses
I see are not advocating violence, nor would they be inciting any.
>
>
>> 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.
Just my guess, but the logic seems sound to me.
No actual evidence of a god. Plenty of evidence men wrote fiction,
copies of earlier fictions, ludicrous text in the bible, errors and
inconsistencies and contradictions.
It seems inescapable that logic indicates theism is erroneous.
I would very much be interested in seeing the list of many types of
atheism, and a bonus if some kind of palatability rating accompanied
each listing. I would expect it to be a miniscule list compared to the
many types of christian churches, but something worthy of "many"
nonetheless. I'd really like to read your list.
>
>
>> 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.
It's difficult to sustain intelligent discussion with theists when the
topic is about god's existence. I see lots of threads that repeat a
similar pattern, where a theist deliberately or unwittingly pushes an
atheists buttons. It's often about claims that can never be sup****ted,
or the same old **** over and over and over and over... again.
About what you call evidence for instance, if you can't share it then
to me it is not evidence at all. It might be your internal reasoning
of some kind, but in no way is it real evidence to anybody that can't
see it. It sounds like an unsup****table claim.
>
>
>> 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.
I'm not so sure it does mean that much more to most atheists. I think
the kinds of reactions to theists, their claims, and how they push
their beliefs, varies greatly, but it seems to me the basic statement
above is pretty common in the minds of most atheists.
>
>> 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.
That's part of the simplicity of that logic, it is untestable because
it is myth, as is unverifiable, as in for all man's searching for god
he's done a piss poor job of proving it to any skeptic. What's the
point of creating all these details about a god and what he wants if
the best possibility is that maybe in a million years he will drop in
and say "hey". This is indistinguishable from saying god doesn't
exist. The whole god thing is a huge waste of time and a stunning
waste of resources, not to mention the horrible bloodlust and needless
contention, misogyny etc and so on.
>
>> 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.
Is it not possible in your mind that god put that reflector there? Is
he magical enough that the reflector was there before he put it there?
Godzheimers?
All kidding aside, how do you know that the bulk of atheists would
cease to be atheists if a god plainly revealed himself? Even one
outside the "paradigm" comment below. Might you be projecting?
>
>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?
It wouldn't be proof at all if god stood next to you masquerading as
some anonymous person in the crowd. What a colossal waste of
op****tunity that is. If god created us to value evidence, he oughtta
know this eh?
It would take simple plain evidence, not more myth or impossible to
understand evidence or impossible to find clue. God would in essence
have to act a lot smarter than theists write or talk about him/her/it.
>
>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.
You are projecting big time, you really can't believe that atheists
really don't believe. There's another button pushed, was it on
purpose? Do you think millions of atheists secretly believe in god?
Do you really think that most atheists are that dishonest?
Then.. you describe the correct god paradigm, and prove that one.
You can't and you know you can't.
But yet you will remain certain that he exists, and you have certain
beliefs about what he demands of you, is that a correct statement?
I'm not interested in a Robert proving that a Jeff's god exists, I'd
like to see a Michael prove that that Michael's god exists.
>
>Michael
|
