Re: Evidence of God

On 24 Nov 2003 16:03:28 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Al Evan), Message
ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
alt.atheism;

>stoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

(snip)

>Stoney,
>Atheism is the disbelief in god.  Disbelief is an action:  To
>disbelieve something requires mental, and, sometimes, physical
>activity.  It is not, as you say above, "...Atheism is not the
>positive claim of anything..."  It most definitly is the positive
>claim that there is no god.

Not at all.  Theists make claims that are not believed.  Advertisers and
con artists make claims that are not believed.  Advertisers, con
artists, and theists make claims that aren't believed-and for the same
reasons.

I could make the flat statement "there is no god" and back it up, if I
wanted to.  Such would be made in the same tone as "There is no Santa
Claus/Leprechauns, etc.."  There would be no reason to treat your
superstition any differently.  I can make the statement, but I don't
care enough about the subject to do so.  I could even back it up via
several different avenues.

Frankly, I'm not a cruel person.  Metaphorically, kicking the walker out
from under a person who's too insecure to stand on their own two feet
and stride along would be just that-cruelty.  If you need that 'walker'
then fine, just don't try and tell me I need a 'walker,' too.  I used to
have one of those walkers many years ago, but I outgrew it and have been
doing just fine striding along ever since.

In spite of what the lying character "Jesus" states and the church
teaches the situation is not binary.  It is not 'for/against.'  The
situation is 'for/irrelevant/against.'

It's quite interesting how theists when they utilize the word 'deny' use
it in the tone that the premise being 'denied' has been objectively
supported.  Such is not the case, but the opposite is.

Take a look at the word deny in the dictionary.  You'll find something
along the lines of 'lacking belief.'  "Bald is not a hair colour" no
matter how much you assert it is.

Disbelief is a lack of belief, nothing more.  It indicates the premise
being asserted is not accepted as fact.

>Therefore, your response to Why, that being an Atheist requires no
>faith, is not true, because, if, as Why claims (and you did not
>disagree), there is no proof that god does not exist, then you must
>believe it as an act of faith--since you can't prove it.

Take a look at the response again.  The only thing I said about Why was
astonishment it couldn't even post properly.

Let's utilize your 'logic.'  You ow me 50,000 UKP.  You had promised the
funds would be back in my bank account no later than 12 November, 2003.
Today's date is 26 November, 2003 and the funds are not there.  You,
sir, broke your word and are now unrepentantly stealing the funds you
borrowed.

The above is based on your 'logic' that all things are true until the
objective evidence indicates it is false.  So which is it?  Do you owe
me the 50,000 UKP because you don't have a receipt from me the funds
were repaid or is it the statement of debt is rejected due to a lack of
evidence?

The theist statements about the effectively undefined g-o-d letter
string are in the same metaphorical boat.

>Thus, Why is logically correct:  You have Faith.

And there's the deceitful bait and switch.  My vehicle is meticulously
maintained and I have 'faith' it will start in the morning although I am
aware a part failure is quite probable at some point in time.  Such
confidence in the vehicle is 'faith' not "FAITH."

I can't help but laugh at a theist saying anything about logic in a
futile attempt to bolster something that has nothing to do with logic
and everything to do with emotion.

You might also keep in mind, the vast majority of U.S. based atheists
were once theists.  In the main, they were of one, or more, of the sects
of Christianity.

After all these years, it doesn't surprise me that theists are so
ignorant.  I'm not surprised, but I am saddened.

If you're going to utilize logic, then please use it on your theism.
Analyze it, break it down, and support each claim made.  Unless you do
so you're no different than the nutcase who rushes up to you wearing a
tin foil hat with a propellor on top that swears it protects against
'mind control rays.'

If you're going to tell me my position then you'd best get it right.
You were, metaphorically, 180 degrees out of phase.

>Respectfully,
>AlEvan

         

   
             Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
               and
          SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}