Source: Page 104 of White Noise Keywords: "seconds," "sense," "us"

From: "The Lone Ranger" Subject: Re: Seconds AA-TQOTM Nomination (Re: I just toured alt.atheism -- What a load of hooey.) Date: 1 Jul 2003 Newsgroups: alt.atheism

"Al Klein" > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:16:43 -0700, "The Lone Ranger" <!> posted in > alt.atheism: > >> >> You can not know the difference between something that can not be > >> >> tested and something imaginary. > >> >You could use common sense. But I realize that is unpopular these days. > >> You don't really want to go there, because common sense tells us that > >> a creator god can't exist. When nothing existed (before he created > >> everything), where could he have been? > >> >You are the one on the merry-go-round. We know the universe and life is here. > >> No proof that any particular god (or any god at all) created either > >> one. > >That wasn't what we were discussing. We were discussing the > >application or lack of common sense. > Common sense doesn't say that if the universe exists a god created it. > LACK of sense says, "if I can't figure out how it was done, a god must > have done it." Common sense would indicate something brought it all into existence, leaving the door open to at least the possibility. To eliminate the possibility without knowing the answer is to defy common sense and reason. > >> >We know how finely balance all these things are. > >> Not at all is how. If carbon couldn't form hydrocarbon chains there > >> would be life based on something else. Or there would be no life. We > >> just happen to live in a universe in which hydrocarbon-based life is > >> the best fit. > >Your response didn't really address the point. > Your assertion doesn't. The universe isn't finely tuned for life, > life is finely tuned for the universe. Considering all the > "mistakes", either the "creator" is incompetent or life evolved. I'm not sure where to start. Your response is incompetent at best. I didn't say the whole universe was hospitible to life to start with, when someone says the universe is finely balanced they are usually considering all the factors. Life under certain conditions would only be one of them. The only "mistakes" I can see is you. > >> >You cannot see evidence of ID because you will only consider what science > >> >can prove, therefore you can only see the pieces but not the puzzle. > >> We only look at real evidence. If you have objective evidence that > >> any god exists objectively, post it. > >Science can't prove or disprove God. > Do you see the word "science" anywhere in my statement? You're just > evading the issue again. It's becoming obvious that you aren't up to this conversation. You said you only look at evidence. Science and its various fields would be the only way to meet your crriteria. > >> >Yes. And as a believer in God I can believe in no other. Do you > >> >believe that there is no God ? No tap dancing, now. > >> Atheism isn't the belief in no god, it's no belief in any god. The > >> only one who's dancing is you. > >You are contradicting yourself. > Only if I look at it from a theistic viewpoint. Trouble is, that's > the only viewpoint you can look at it from, so you can't see the > difference. I've been agnostic and theist so I have seen both sides. I've never been so confused that I called myself atheist because there's no way I could disprove God. > > And the dictionaries do not support your mental gymnastics. > Dictionaries report common usage. In the US, that means common > CHRISTIAN usage. Welcome to Dodge City ! Can you support this assertion ? I was unaware that the various dictionaries were Christian references. If it were true why would you deliberately choose language that confuses more than illuminates your position ? >Sorry, but theists just can't understand how anyone > can be totally apathetic when it comes to gods, even though theists > are totally apathetic when it comes to any god but theirs. But we weren't discussing your feelings. What made you think we were ? We were discussing what you believe or don't believe. You can't be agnostic and atheist at the same time. > >http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/atheism > >atheism > >/"ez()m/ noun belief that no God exists. atheist noun. atheistic /-"st-/adjective. > Sorry, no. Sorry, no ? I didn't write this dictionary either. Sorry, no means that you are burrowing your noggin further in the sand. >Why should atheist be the ONLY word that uses the 'a' > prefix differently? Asynchronous doesn't mean "belief that synchrony > doesn't exist", it means lack of synchrony. Atheism means lack of > theism, nothing more. (Theism means "belief in one or more gods", so > atheism means "lack of belief in any god(s)".) We really don't care > how Christians misuse the word (which is what's in the dictionary - > the Christian misuse, not the actual meaning). Lacking a belief means that you do not believe. You can adopt any obfiscation you want but it won't change the facts. Why not just answer directly, it is so difficult to get a straighforward answer here, do you believe that there is a possibility that God exists ? > >> >What illumination could that bear ? I am not talking about proving God, > >> >I am talking about arriving at a conclusion based on all considerations. > >> So you DO have actual objective evidence of this god? (All else is > >> merely conjecture.) > >I don't believe you can read words grouped in sentences and understand > >their meaning. Since the single term "atheist" throws you it doesn't come > >as a surprise. > It throws almost all Christians - VERY few of you know what it means. > And most who do are Greek. Then you must be using a Greek dictionary. That explains the discepancy. > Now, then ... since you based your conclusion on "all considerations", > and since I must assume that you're at least moderately intelligent > and moderately educated, you must have based your conclusion on > objective evidence. You didn't say "all considerations except > objective evidence", did you? I based my conclusion on the legitimate definition of the terms, including the word agnostic and it's author's intent.vWhat do you base yours on ? > >> >You've concluded that there is no God > >> No, we've concluded that there's no objective evidence that any god > >> exists objectively. Mainly because there isn't any. > >So you are an agnostic. > No, I'm addressing belief, not knowledge. Or don't you understand > that "agnostic" means "someone who doesn't draw conclusions from > insufficient evidence"? (Don't bother with a dictionary. Huxley knew > precisely what he was defining when he coined the word, and said as > much.) And I've posted his definition. I have no issue with it as it is consistent with the dictionary references I've read. If the view is one you uphold then you are an agnostic, not atheist. > >> > and it's all a happy accident. > >> Nothing accidental. the universe is deterministic. > >Right. > If it's not deterministic it's accidental. Your choice, but I don't > think you want "accidental". I don't think you want deterministic. > >> >You can't prove that either, can you ? > >> Better than you can prove that your god exists objectively. > >Go ahead. > That the world is deterministic? Do you understand anything about > cause and effect? (If you don't, I'll have to explain it some other > way.) Sure. Explain the cause for your uncaused universe. > >> >> So how was the water canopy possible? What is the evidence for this. > >> >> You have twisted away from this again. > >> >There's a number of theories out there. You should seek them out one by > >> >one and preseent all scientific evidence to the contrary. > >> That's shifting the burden. You should post even a single actual > >> theory (that's theory, not guess) of how the water canopy was > >> possible. > >I wasn't out to prove any biblical events. > You claimed that there was a water canopy. That puts the burden of > providing evidence to back up your claim on you. You are in error again. Please do a google search. > > If want to disprove them then obviously the burden is yours. > No one is required to disprove your assertions - you're required to > back them up. What assertion did I make ? > >> > Failure to do this will hereby be acknowledged as a dodge. > >> Failure to back up your assertions IS a dodge. Our failure to > >> disprove them isn't. > >You came late, you said little and you completely missed the point. > No, I understand the point - that you're trying to evade the burden > you unwittingly assumed. What burden did I assume ? Who is doing the assuming here ? >It's long been the case on usenet that if > you make an assertion and it's challenged, you either present evidence > or withdraw the assertion. What assertion ? That you confuse the terms atheist and agnostic ? I've already demonstrated that. > >For you I'll make it again. The point was that if you are an atheist > >you are one by belief. > That's your assertion. You have yet to even provide evidence to back > it up, let alone prove it. I can bring the horse to water but I cannot make him drink. The evidence is the definitions in the dictionaries which rubbed your mindset the wrong way so you dismissed them as Christian propaganda. I'll let an objective reader decide if my assertion was correct. > > Not by science, reason or logic any more than > >a theist. You have a belief as they have a belief. > An atheist has a god-belief as much as a bald man has hair. And, > since atheism speaks strictly to belief in a god, no other beliefs are > germane. Where was I wrong then ? You have a belief that no god exists. You do not know it by science or any means other than by belief. That's faith. > > Also you are using the term atheist improperly unless you do make a statement of faith. > YOU'RE telling ME what I believe or don't believe? Quick, sell me > your secret to telepathy. Or admit that you haven't said anything > sensible since you started posting to usenet. (And probably for a > long time before that.) If your words mean anything I know what you believe. > Remember, you're an atheist as regards every single god but the one > you believe in. You're probably also an anti-theist about them too > (which is what you're mistaking atheism for). The terms do not lend themselves to such mental gymnastics. Those are your interpretations not proper terminology. I cannot be the one that is mistaken if I am the one using the terms properly.

Back to "The Usenet Project" Main Page - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive