Posted on 08/05/2003 7:13:36 AM PDT by RockChucker
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
She's a feminist. I am sure her beliefs about babies made the dirty deed a little easier.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Nonsense. You believe, just in not-god.
It is not the person who says "There is no god," but the one who says,"Who cares?" that demonstrates real lack of belief.
The "Who cares?" crowd (diffrentiated from other "I don't know" agnostics) doesn't proselytize, as you do.
Try proving the non-existence of ANYTHING. Prove unicorns don't exist. You can't, unless you prove that the idea of a unicorn is inherently contradictory and cannot exist.
The burden of proof lies entirely on the believer. But being a "believer" already makes them incapable of seeing that, thus we end up right back where we started. Since we have no mutually agreed upon starting point, it's useless to go on. Arguing with someone who can't even see that is doubly useless.
That's your opinion. I see no difference. You need to distinguish between them to bolster your point, but you haven't said anything to support that.
Here's an example. I don't speak Arabic. My 3 year old nephew doesn't even know there is any such THING as Arabic and couldn't care less. That difference is, however, not relevant to the fact that we both do not speak Arabic.
Know you're right? How so? That you're right about naively presuming that belief in elves compares to belief in the Extra-Cosmic Absolute? Absurd!
The profound questions surrounding the origin of the all things seen and unseen have nothing whatsoever to do with fairytales about elves. If you think it's clever to compare the two, it only shows your ignorance of philosophy and history and of the great personages who have dealt with these questions. To snicker at the "boobs" who make a leap of faith is easy; to actually engage the dilemma of faith with serious intent is far more difficult.
The educated person knows too much to be a relativist and not enough to be an absolutist. While you may think otherwise, by calling yourself an atheist (an absolutist) rather than an agnostic (a doubter), you actually fall into the same category as the absolutists you claim to deplore.
You're dodging the issue. The issue is, given the evidence we DO have, is it more logical to believe in an all-powerful being who created all things, or not?
The weight of logic, the argument from causality, the ontological argument, the presence of the Scriptures, creation itself, the conscience of man, and finally of course the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus...all of this cannot be dismissed with invalid analogies to elves.
Consider the following:
1. Some things undeniably exist.
2. My non-existence is possible.
3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.
5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
7. This infinitely perfect being is appropriately called "God".
8. Therefore, God exists.
9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
To have an opinion is to have a belief. You believe there is no God.
Your language analogy is just bad. Come up with a better one or give up.
See, I told you it was pointless to argue. We have no starting point and Christians seem to think that if they just state an opinion baldly enough it will be accepted as gospel. Well, why wouldn't they believe that, it worked on them. Give it up.
If everything that exists must have a creator, who created "God"? If he doesn't need a creator, why does matter? If he does, there goes the entire thesis, you simply have a "Then who created that which created God? And who created THAT?" It goes on and on till it's turtles all the way down. Pointless. I am perfectly aware of the various and sundry philosophers who have grappled with such things. They are just men who asked questions. Don't diefy them, and say "who are you to question Pascal?" or whatever.
Well, maybe you can't help it. Maybe you just like diefying things left and right. Oh well, go ahead. Unlike some people, I can handle the fact that some people believe in things that don't exist. I only remarked upon this to begin with in response to a direct question.
6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
Here's where you go wrong. This is like assuming gravity has consciousness.
As for my personal beliefs, you know nothing of them since I haven't been defending them in my posts to you. I have simply pointed out the puerility, close-mindedness and benightedness of your own absolutist views.
I have respect for a few declared atheists, including Glenn Reynolds and Steven Den Beste, to name two who have made a name for themselves in the blogosphere, and even Camille Paglia, the author. When they present their position on the deity they are careful to avoid overweaning arrogance of the type that permeates your posts, and which is a staple in the mainstream of dogmatic atheists and uneducated poseurs. Unlike the dogmatists, Den Beste, Reynolds and Paglia take a thoughtful approach to the deep and profound mysteries that confront us daily (the most perplexing of which are nowhere near to being solved, by the way) and they are always careful to underline the subjective and tentative nature of their conclusions and to show respect for the powerful, pervasive and, again, highly mysterious, deist meme in human consciousness which traces its history far, far back into the remote mists of time.
In his autobiography, Darwin, who also called himself an agnostic, wrote that the magnificence of the universe almost forces one to conclude that God exists. However, he continued, "Can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?" He goes on to say that the problem is compounded by "the probability that the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children has produced so strong and perhaps inherited effect on their brains, that it may now be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear of a snake". For this monkey at least, my great-great-grandfather was right.
Randal Keynes, Great-great grandson of Charles Darwin
Then why are you doing it?
Essentially, he closed the conversation down as effectively as he could by insisting that no person who believes in ANY religion can criticize Islam. After all, all religions can be used to justify violence (but let's face it, some of them are more useful than others, and we've seen it.) Nevertheless, he demanded that, before anyone be allowed to critique or analyze Islam, they had to defend Christianity to his satisfaction (which would be impossible; he'd never be satisfied). What he really wanted to was to turn the discussion into a condemnation of religion in general. It's his thing. He has no respect for the fact that our culture is Judeo-Christian, and Christians are the ones willing to fight for this country. You can respect that even while knowing that they believe in something that isn't real. It's not that hard.
But on the flip side, Christians and other theists act the same way. Atheists can't be allowed to say "There is no god, but you're welcome to believe if you want." Theists have to attack and try to define the atheist right out of existence. They say atheism IS a belief system (it's not.) They snarl and call them arrogant, compare general atheism to Communism, and essentially try to force atheists to keep their thoughts secret. Each side thinks the other side has no right to join in a discussion about Marxism or Islam, which are the two biggest threats to this country today.
The space I'm trying to clear in the center consists of this: atheists and theists have to recognize that we can't solve that issue between us, because we have no mutually-agreeable starting point. What we CAN do is discuss Marxism and its dangers without trying to turn it into a condemnation of all atheism, and we can discuss Islam without trying to turn it into a condemnation of all relgion. Because neither theism nor atheism is what endangers us. Marxism and Islam are.
This particular murderer stated quite clearly to her mother that she had killed the baby. 'The Baby' is expendable in our death culture for nine months. Why do we conclude that this attitude will not be applied to the niggling inconvenience of enslaved women having to life support the delivered infant? ... It's actually easier to life support the womb-bound infant! And if that's too inconvenient to our society such that a large portion of citizenry condones the serial killing of such inconvenient little ones, how in the name of humanity can we expect some sick women to resist exptrapolating the dehumanization into toddlerhood?
The woman knew what she was doing, she just believed she had the right to do it since it was 'her baby'. The democrat party and liberals of America have drilled that notion into the society so successfully that the baby is not deemed to be its own self with right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as the thing is dependant upon others to life support it. To the liebral mindset, a baby is not afforded the consistent characterization of 'ALIVE' as an individual human being, so it can be discarded.
'In that day, there was no king in Israel, so every man/woman did what was right in their own eyes.'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.