Posted by Steve on 09/20/07 00:05

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:IYadneHCG5Q0BmzbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:lOqdnSHxypjj0W3bnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> Atheism is a religion?
>>>>>> Do you actually have any clue?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I do. It is a disbelief in a god, as Shelly pointed out from
>>>>> Websters.
>>>> perhaps you need several clues then!
>>>>
>>>> i don't believe the toothfairy is real. am i religious now, being an
>>>> atoothfairian?
>>>>
>>> If you could get the rest of the world to agree the tooth fairy is a
>>> god,then yes. But I doubt you would be able to do that.
>>
>> oh, so concensus is what makes a god a god...interesting.
>>
>
> How else would you do it? After all - you said a god's presence couldn't
> be proven.

i wouldn't. i don't make the claim that he exists. so that's not my job.
and, i say many things about god. when there is no evidence (which is how
i'd go about proving he existed), then any possible attribute can be
ascribed to god. and every postulate about god would be equally true since
none of the claims has evidence by which it could be falsified.

>>>> or, is this a special case because the word gawd is the object of
>>>> disbelief?
>>>>
>>> The belief in a higher power. Call it God, Jehovah, Allah or any of the
>>> other names the higher power is known by, yes. That is the definition
>>> of religion.
>>
>> funny how non of that exists in atheism. declaring the obvious, there is
>> no evidence of any god(s), does not follow your definition of religion,
>> now does it. we, atheists, are without belief in a higher power.
>>
>
> I knew you would say that, but I couldn't come up with a better way to put
> it. But your belief in an absence of a higher power is also a belief.
> But we've been there before.

yet you fail to get it still. conclusion and belief are not the same things.
my focus is on evidence. wait, why am i suprised that you focus on belief?!

let's do this one final time shall we?

i see no evidence of higher powers, therefore higher powers remain
conceptual, subjective notions. and because of that, i find *belief in god*
irrelevant. none of that, one last time, requires belief on my part. it is
merely a conclusion about the premise.

>>>>>> Please Jerry: I read this whole thread (my bad) and came to the
>>>>>> conclusion you better stick with PHP.
>>>>>> You can speak with some authority on PHP, but your worldview....
>>>>>> It is dangerous singleminded dribble in my humble opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.
>>>> hmmm...if we apply the scientific method to this, and since there is no
>>>> observable evidence god does exist...yep, i'd say his is more likely
>>>> right than not.
>>>>
>>> Faulty logic. Lack of proof that something exists is not proof it does
>>> not exist.
>>
>> scientific method would say the case that one does exist is not valid
>> without supporting evidence.
>> logic goes further. since there is no evidence supporting the claim, the
>> original state of affairs remains the same...therefor, there is no god.
>>
>
> No, it does not. It says something may exist until there is evidence
> proving to the contrary.

LOL so hard! so aside from philosophy, logic was likewise not one of your
favorite courses? how about science, *excluding* computer science?

> People come up with unsupported theories all the time, i.e. that atoms are
> indivisible. That theory went on for a while until the Curies discovered
> radioactivity and found atoms could be divided and the theory was proven
> false.

the point...it was falsifiable, god notions are not. why? there is no
evidence to do so. and the response of science was? dogmatically cling to
what it had been supporting? nope. and your point here again was?

> Note that the scientific method did not say atoms could not be divided; it
> just said there was no indication they could. But then there was.

just so we're clear...the scientific method is an inanimate process. it does
not say. scientists go through the process 'saying' what they discoved about
the outcome of said process.

again, your point?

> The same way, protons, electrons and neutrons were thought to be
> indivisible until particle accelerators came along. Then we found they
> could be divided. Again, the scientific method did not say they could not
> be divided; just that there was no proof one way or the other.

scientists don't jump to too many conclusions. they tend to either know or
not know. when they know, be assured, they have proof. yet, you think it
ethical for them to behave in another manner?

what college did you go to?

>
>> but lets stick to what we don't have...proof that gods exist. i'll ask
>> you the same question that i asked shelly. this should be more pertenant
>> to you since you are a christian and believe in a personal savior...
>>
>> what kind of relationship can you infer that a god, that does not give
>> evidence for himself, would want to have with humanity? if he seems to
>> want to be hidden, it kind of follows that he/she/it/they really don't
>> want to be known, much less know you. further, if you have no objective
>> evidence that god exists, how could you possibly jump to the conclusion
>> that the bible is his word and that jesus is his son and that that
>> perspective is the only way to eternal life...much less be assured that
>> there is a heaven or hell?
>>
>> without evidence, we cannot confirm god(s) intentions toward us and can't
>> really know anything about him. without evidence, your most fundamental
>> question should not be whether or not a god(s) exist, rather it should be
>> what are his intentions toward me.
>>
>
> No, we can't. Even with evidence I doubt we could understand, much less
> confirm God's intentions towards us, any more than an ant could understand
> our intentions towards it.
>
> But again, my faith is what does it for me.

after all this, that's the first reasonable thing you've said. and even in
non-judgemental or confrontational terms. good on ya.

here's your chance at applying understanding...

do you get that some of us are by nature, very leery about taking things on
faith alone?

i will be quite happy with the outcome of this conversation if i get an
honest 'yes' and things are left at that.

>>>> jerry, religion makes the claim god exists. atheist just don't believe
>>>> them until they provide evidence. it's the logical thing to do. for you
>>>> making the claim, it would only be responsible to provide such evidence
>>>> so that we needn't go back and forth.
>>>>
>>> That's fine. You're entitled to your beliefs, also.
>>
>> however, you are not entitled to say atheism is a religion just because
>> you want to. you clearly have no understanding of any other perspective
>> other than christianity. i suppose i shouldn't have expected any more
>> from you than that.
>>
>
> And you are not entitled to say atheism is not a religion just because you
> don't want to be associated with a religion.

right. good thing that is not my motivation or reasoning.

>> you stumbled right into pascal's wager even when i warned you one post
>> before...i guess i should at least give you credit, given this thread's
>> length, for not pulling a godwin at this point. if you're not done with
>> this thread yet, i may have just predicted your next post...unless you're
>> googling now to avert another blunder. ;^)
>>
>> EOT
> Whatever.

is that the best you can do for a comeback? after said embarrassment, i'd
either play it off or just say, yeah, you got me.

[Back to original message]