MadMordigan

1. Why does the atheist feel the need to debate the EOG? As atheist AJ Ayer remarked, it remains nonsensical to discuss a non-existent Being.

I like discussing whether Spiderman would beat up Batman. So I suppose I disagree with AJ Ayer, whoever the fuck he is.

2. How do you arrive at judgements about all things that in their essence, are mysterious with no explaination at all?

I treat them as the bullshit they almost invaribly are. It doesn't matter if the person is wearign a salesman's tie, a scientists labcoat or a priest frock. I want to see hard evidence. Would you buy a car that 'mysteriously' got 300 miles per gallon? Would you buy a brige that someone 'mysteriously' gained in a card game? If so, I have one for sale.

3. Pragmatically, have you benefited from a country founded upon 'god' principles, and if not, would you prefer a 'godless' country? Assuming so, would actual relocation be the appropriate solution to your dilemma? And if not, how is atheism a better alternative to a belief in God?

I like this country in almost every way, but I can imagine a better one. One way it could be better is if we had less subsidization and influences between church and state.

4. What is the common expectation level of the atheist when establishing a methodolgy to prove something exists, not god necessarily, but just a 'proof' in general? Do you need to physically "see" something?

How me the thing, or its effects. Show a mechanism for this thing to cause the effect witnessed. Remove the thing, and show me that the effects go away. SHOW that this cause is both necessary and sufficent for the effects witnessed.

This is basic troubleshooting any 1st year apprentice plumber could teach you.

5. What does it really mean to understand or believe something from reading, comprehending, and otherwise using the tools of logic and reason and other parts of the intellect to determine or verifying the true-ness or false-ness of a statement made by someone and/or from a book?

I'm sorry, I have no clue what this is supposed to mean.

6. If the athiest uses analytic apriori propostions for the bases of conclusive evidence or otherwise making a judgement that there is no God, why doesn't he use the analytic apriori for all his reasoning? Isn't he using the theist's ontological argument-logic as the sole means in establishing whether something does or does not exist? To the atheist, is that not logically inconsistent?

Nor this

Hobbs

[quote]Originally posted by WJ:
<strong>WJ, I don't recall if I've asked you this question, but I have asked it many times over the years, and a few times recently on this board, but I have yet to find a theist who has made a real effort (and a very few who have made any effort at all) to address this issue. Perhaps you would be willing to give it a try. If you think about it carefully, you may understand why someone would find it plausible not to believe in a god, or at least not in one that is in any way knowable by or relevant to us:

Why is it that in matters of theology, morality, politics, etc., God always invariably agrees with his followers?

Now, since those followers so often disagree with one another, something is obviously wrong here. Despite their sincerity and certainty that they know and experience God, at least most of them must have gotten it wrong, and it's not really "God" that they "know" from the experiences they label as "religious." It seems to me to make much more sense to conclude that people create their gods in their own image, by taking their own opinions, preferences, and prejudices, their ideal of what a person could/should be, which they feel so strongly and believe must be right, and granting them divine status.

If you believe in God, your claim to reliably know anything about God would be significantly enhanced (in my eyes, anyway) if you were to list a few points about which you and God disagree.

pug846

WJ said:

Have you read any Ayer and the context under which the issue is discussed or did you just pick up a quote of his from one of your handy apologetic websites?

You’re going to have to translate this one into something intelligible for me.

Last time I checked, in practice, this country wasn’t founded on ‘god’ principles. Are you a pragmatist? Is it relevant whether the belief in God is useful or not? Is that your criterion for belief?

I’ll try not to barf when you use the all too predictable love analogy.

Eh?

Sorry, I don’t fulfill your antecedent condition.

The fact that there isn’t enough compelling reasons to justify belief in God? Intellectual honesty maybe? That a good enough reason?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Convince me that Christianity is logically sound. Especially the part where this all-powerful God thinks that the best way to save people from Hell is by torturing his own son for a few hours, killing him, and resurrecting him, then requiring that people pray to his resurrected son, and also beg forgiveness. Considering all he had to do was simply forgive those who truly were sorry for all wrongs they had committed (since he is infinite in mercy), without having to sacrifice his son.

Oh, convince me that your God is not an asshole.

Typhon

If a man runs through my neighborhood crying out that a giant radioactive lizard is heading right for it and that we must evacuate to a safe place, I'm going to debate the EOGRL.

If a man runs into my house, bringing others with him, and they claim there are demons living in my walls which requires them burning down the structure and planting geraniums in the ashen lot to ward off the return of evil spirits, I'm going debate the EOD.

If a man runs into my bedroom and claims with wild eyes rolling and spittle flying from his lips that having consensual, non-procreative sex with my partner is evil in the eyes of his god, I'm going to debate the EOhG.

All these scenarios are not far from what I suffer on a day to day basis due to those who profess belief in magical, imaginary, and frankly, infantile creations of their own and others fantasies. They bleat their lies and foolishness in the streets and coffee houses, on the corner of my block every Tuesday when the Planned Parenthood meets, they bomb local newspapers and businesses with letters and petitions, they whinge and scream for legislature to be passed enforcing the rule of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and down right stupidity. THEY are the reason I debate the EOGs, not because I suspect for one moment that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Holy Joke actually exist, but because their pernicious, rabid, society affecting followers do.

It is not nonsensical to discuss one's lack of belief in non-existent beings if one is surrounded by those who against both logic and common sense, do believe.

All things, at their essence, are not mysterious and with "no explanation at all." There are many, many, many, many, many, many subjects, events, forces, and occurrences which are not only understandable and common place, but well explained through a naturalistic and comprehendible universe. Simply because some things still are not able to be fully explained, does not mean that (a) the rest of our experiential knowledge is invalid, (b) that the universe or anything in it is not potentially and likely understandable taken as a whole, and (c) given time, perseverance, and better tools of observation, the currently "mysterious' will not become the well understood.

Patent nonsense. Assuming you speak of the United States of America, it is a nation founded by a revolution of elite, wealthy, deist merchants, many of which had very little interest or intent to found a new born nation on belief in gods or in service of religion. Democracy is a product of the Greeks, pagans, and much of English law and custom is a blending of Roman, Germanic, and Christian practices, concerns, and beliefs. Even the U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787, is a godless document. God or gods are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Nazi Germany however was a country founded upon 'god' principles, "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with Us) could be proudly seen on the belt buckles of its soldiers.

In the US, fundamentalist Christianity has long attempted to hijack a nation to which it has no better claim than any other group. Religion is indeed an opiate of the masses, used by the wealthy and societal elite to further hold on to their control over the stupid, undereducated, and gullible majority.

And yes, I'd much rather live in a "godless" country. I am happy to say that I'll soon be residing elsewhere than the US in less than a month.

Atheism is a better alternative to a belief in god or gods if for no other reason that it is a more true statement about the world and our place in it. Believing in imaginary critters may make you feel better, but it comes with a heavy price.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Give me an example, and I'll give you a level of expectation I would need to trust such a source, event, or claim.

It can mean literally nothing if your tools are faulty, your motives uncertain, your ability to apply critical thinking weak or non-existent, and the information you are presented with, unsupported, false, or deliberately misleading.

A book is only as trustworthy as its authors, and perhaps, not even that much. This is why science and rational discoveries depend a lot on collaborative work, independent monitoring and testing, rigorous peer review, and thorough investigation, careful sampling, and preferably, repeatable, consistent, agreed up results. It is also why science unlike religion, is not normally held as unchangeable dogma, but is open to change, re-interpretation, and improvement.

Please clarify your use of "a priori" here.

It can mean anything from an argument that is merely one from cause to effect:

"To prove the existence of God a priori, you must show that every other hypoth’esis is more unlikely, and therefore this hypothesis is the most likely. All mathematical proofs are of this kind."

To a variety of definitions:

"1. Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive. 2a. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience. b. Knowable without appeal to particular experience. 3. Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study." - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

And more.

However, these listed above, are the use I'm most familiar with, and don't see why you use then in the case of atheism, which is a lack of god-belief based upon a lack of evidence and a lack of logical necessity for the existence of god or gods.

Naturalism certainly is supported by factual study, as is atheism as much as a lack of belief in something may.

Again please elaborate as to what point you're trying to make here, this statement does not make sense to me at least, considering what atheism is, nor would it appear to bear on the reality of the dreadful paucity of evidence for the existence of god or gods.

One, the salient fact that it appears to be the most likely and truest stance on the question of god or gods. Two, there is no credible evidence for the existence of god or gods. And three, based upon experience, observation, logic, and reasoning, there appears to be no necessity for the existence of god or gods, even in the case that the evidence for, was being intentionally or of necessity "hidden."

Now. I've patiently answered your questions, and at great length. I would like to see you answer in return the one I keep asking over and over and over again.

What proof do you have to present that your statement "god is a logical necessity" is factually true?

.T.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

ChrisJGQ

Ironically, the only thing that could convince you there is no god would be a god.

MrDarwin

Because against all odds we have never lost the hope that the rest of you will eventually come to your senses.

davidm

WJ:
As a Christian (xian if you like) my thesis is that the reality of a no-god belief [atheism] translates into a political, social and psychological response to a hatred or slight resentment toward Religion, but more importantly, have realized atheism is logically inconsistent.
Some thoughts on the subject:

My response:
In the future, please try to be coherent and grammatical. Your introduction, above, is both incoherent and ungrammatical. Because it is senseless, no valid response can be made.

WJ:
1. Why does the atheist feel the need to debate the EOG? As atheist AJ Ayer remarked, it remains nonsensical to discuss a nonexistent Being.

My response:
Many people here debate the issue so that observers can be educated. Your incoherent posts help educate people against your position. Keep up the good work!

WJ:
2. How do you arrive at judgments about all things that in their essence, are mysterious with no explanation at all?

My response:
Name such things. There are no such things. There are certainly things that are unexplained. That does not mean that they will not be explained. This is a God of the Gaps argument, tedious as usual.


WJ:
3. Pragmatically, have you benefited from a country founded upon 'god' principles, and if not, would you prefer a 'godless' country? Assuming so, would actual relocation be the appropriate solution to your dilemma? And if not, how is atheism a better alternative to a belief in God?

My response:
What crap. The United States was not founded upon Christian principles. It was founded by people steeped in the Enlightenment. To the extent that most of the founding fathers had religious beliefs at all, they were Deists. The United States was specifically founded as a secular nation, with a firm demarcation between secular institutions and religious mythology. Keep up the good work!

WJ:
4. What is the common expectation level of the atheist when establishing a methodology to prove something exists, not god necessarily, but just a 'proof' in general? Do you need to physically "see" something?

My response:
Do you understand anything about science? Evidently not. Scientists do not have to physically "see" something to provide evidence for its existence. Please try to educate yourself on this matter.


WJ:
5. What does it really mean to understand or believe something from reading, comprehending, and otherwise using the tools of logic and reason and other parts of the intellect to determine or verifying the trueness or falseness of a statement made by someone and/or from a book?

My response:
I don't know, what's your view? You seem to be saying that the tools of logic and reason are not sufficient to evaluate reality. If they're not, can you suggest what tools we should use? A screwdriver?


WJ:
6. If the atheism uses analytic apriori propositions for the bases of conclusive evidence or otherwise making a judgment that there is no God, why doesn't he use the analytic apriori for all his reasoning? Isn't he using the theist's ontological argument-logic as the sole means in establishing whether something does or does not exist? To the atheist, is that not logically inconsistent?

My response:
This is all meaningless (and ungrammatical) babble, guaranteed to drive people from your position. Keep up the good work!

WJ:
What reason, through logic or otherwise, would be compelling enough for me or any other individual to want to adopt, hold or maintain a no-god belief?

My response:
Who cares? Since, objectively, there is no evidence for any sort of God and no sound logical argument for such a being, you have the burden of proof.

Hobbs

But the odds are very good that at least a few of them will come to their senses. And we can hope that many of them will. Probably not WJ, as his "thinking" (I use the term loosely here) is far too muddled to find a coherent way out of his imaginary paper bag. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see someone like luvluv follow Rainbow Walking in walking away.

WinAce

Damnit, I just lost 5 bucks!