Atheism is stupid

Self | 6-28-02 | Matt Festa

[Festa]

I am a theist and as I view the issue,agnosticism is a much more tenable position than atheism

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

We seem to have gotten into an absurd situation in the U.S. where "atheists" seem to think that since they are offended by any public mention of God, Jesus, Christianity, Christmas, life after death, etc., that they should be "protected" legally from getting their feelings hurt that they don't have a Jesus. Maybe a national therapy program for them would be better than all these NO-God court rulings.

[balrog666]

Your post was well reasoned, logical, and very polite. Nicely said.

[BMCDA]

"Based on all my experiences and investigations, I have found no proof that a god exists and, therefore, do not believe in a god. Likewise, I have found no proof that a god does not exits and for the same reason do not deny his existence."

Well, and that's also my position: I've seen no evidence that convinces me of the existence of any gods nor have I seen compelling evidence in favour of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or leprechauns, hence I do not believe in them and that makes me an atheist (because of the "believe" part). However, I do not claim that they cannot exist, after all, it may be that an entity exists that fits one of the above definitions but unless the evidence for it's existence is not convincing me I simply don't believe it exists (which is not the same as "believing that it does not exist).

[Misterioso]

And what might this issue be? Since the two have no intersection, I can't imagine. Could you spell it out for me. You, an atheist, are making the same mistake that a lot of believers make, when they think that they must decide between their religion and science. The two never contradict one another, because they seek different kinds of answers to the same problems.

Are you saying there is no conflict between "Creation Science" and Evolution? That would surprise everyone. What are the different kinds of answers you allude to?

No, that's not correct. When an agnostic says that he has no opinion, he is saying that he has examined the matter carefully and, for the time being, has found no theological proof. This is similar to the answer that a wise and experienced detective, working on a murder case, might give to the press while the case is still open.

What does "theological proof" mean? Is that a special kind of proof? And your example of the detective is not similar to your explanation. A similarity would be your detective, having received a telephone tip that a murder was committed, but with no other details, announcing that the investigation was "going slowly." Absurd.

Well, we'll have no logical chicanery this morning. I don't know where you get this equivocation malarkey, but my position can be stated very clearly. "Based on all my experiences and investigations, I have found no proof that a god exists and, therefore, do not believe in a god. Likewise, I have found no proof that a god does not exits and for the same reason do not deny his existence." I don't think that you can get any clearer than that. As a matter of fact, I would challenge you to state your position as clearly and logically. When you try, I think the faith-based nature of your position will become obvious.

Your position would be more clear if it didn't require proof for a negative, which is not possible. Minus that requirement, your position is that of an atheist, as much as that might pain you.

To just say that their (sic) is a lack of evidence has no meaning. For example, in the first stages of a murder investigation, there may be a lack of evidence, but this is of no importance and the investigation carries on.

In my imprecision I neglected to say "lack of any evidence." With out any evidence there cannot be an investigation of anything.

Investigations such as Godel's Incompleteness Theorems taught me that there are some things in the world that can never be known, but I take pride in at least maintaining logically consistent positions. The position of agnosticism is generally accepted by philosophers, such as Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper as being the only philosophically tenable position. I find it curious that you not only disagree with these intellectual giants, but hold them in complete disdain as well. I would be curious as to what your background is.

So it is your belief that the universe is unknowable, in principle. How is that any different than the theist who knows it can be changed at any moment by a whimsical God? By throwing Godel, Russell and Popper into the discussion, do you think you have strengthened your argument? I intend to support my views with my reasons, not by relying on the prestige of famous thinkers. And, by knowing my "background," you could then proceed to challenge my position based upon your own interpretation of it. No thanks.

BTW thanks for these words: chicanery, malarkey, stupid.

[Misterioso]

Obviously, we are not communicating very well. I will leave you to your beliefs. You have every right to them. May you live long and prosper.

[Hank Kerchief]

The only tenable position is that of the true agnostic, who simply says that there is no way of either proving or disproving the existence of God and therefore has no opinion on the matter.

Is that your opinion?

(Sorry, couldn't hslp it, my sinful nature made me do it.)

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

The more one knows of science - especially physics (which covers all fields) - the more one should see the hand of God in everything

If you are seeing the "hand of God" (or any other parts), in anything, you may be in need of some help:

John 4:24 God is a Spirit... John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time... Nor any of His parts either, I'm sure.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Our job as a society is to

You were doing great unitl you got to the above

The only job anyone has to worry about is their own. Almost all the problems in this world are the result of individuals thinking they have some "higher" social objective then minding their own business which always ulimate means medling in other people's business.

Nobody needs to be "making" all the various postulates get along, because people do not have to "get along" in order to be decent, productive, or happy. Mostly, they just need to stay out of each other's way, that is, mind their own business.

Hank

[John Locke]

Only in himself- he cited evolutionism as the justification for the eradication of the Jews, the Polish, the Rom (gypsies), etc.

Huh? Hitler didn't believe in evolution. He believed in the Special Creation of successive races of mankind.

[RobRoy]

If your wife was suffering from back pain for so long, why did you wait so long to come to her rescue?

I did. We had been going off and on to Chiropractors and before she met me she had nad other medical attention as well. Although pain would be relieved temprarily and only partly, it always came back. We had accepted it as a permanent condition - like someone who gets migranes...

[RobRoy]

You are right, at least more right than me. I stand corrected. The word love seems to have two meanings that have some in common, but not much - kind of like the word "Bitch." It's a female dog. It's also a "bad tempered woman." Similar (in some peoples minds, anyway), but very different.

The word love, in my circles literally is an "action." For example, you love your wife by taking out the garbage when you don't want to, or turning off a game on the tube when there is something she wants to talk about. She loves you by fixing you dinner even if she's too tired. But heres the real rub: she loves him by doing this iven if he's a jerk, and he loves her by doing this even if she's a "bitch."

Why? Because you love someone not because of who they are, but because of who you are. That's why a mother can love (emotionally, too) her raping, murdering gangland son; why a selfish mother can "not" love her straight "A", always keeps her room cleaned up, always trying to please, daughter.

It is also why God loves us, in spite of who we are. So, from the Christian perspective, when I think of Love, I think of the Love of God, Who gave His only Son, even though He was perfect, that we may spend eternity in His presence.

"Greater love has no man than this: that he lay down his own life for his friends."

The dictionary has avoided that definition, for some odd reason. I'm going with the older book... 8^>

[RobRoy]

I regret the title "atheism is stupid" because I know I offended people.

Don't regret it. Sometimes you gotta say it like it is. But I must say this and please understand it is not a putdown - just a suggestion. Try to never, ever EVER call people names here. Once anyone calls someone names (even stupid, although your title is merely calling a "belief" stupid, and the article aptly supports that name), youe destroy your credibility.

No matter how offensive or belittling the other party is (and some of them get pretty bad), name calling is never, EVER productive or persuasive - Even if half the people here agree with your labels.

Believe me, I understand your frustration, just try not to do it 8^>

[Colosis]

Um...how about the fact that life is alive and capable of adaptations whereas your juvenile tornado/mechanical parts example involves wholly inanimate objects. Try harder next time.

WOW, it doesn't take much to get under your skin, your highness. The 'juvenile' analogy is not actually mine (I pointed this out in my post, if you bothered reading it before launching your little tirade), but made by Paul Davies in his book God and the New Physics.

So perhaps you should direct your wrath at the author of The Cosmic Blueprint, The Mind of God, The Last Three Minutes, About Time, Are We Alone? and The Fifth Miracle: the search for the origin of life unless of course his views are too juvenile for you to contemplate. BTW, everything is made up of "wholly inanimate objects", i.e. particles, is it not?

[LiteKeeper]

Read later