🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Meredith wrote:
> In article <sba274h0m6sfce2dq2q7nqsrh2lca5pnva@4ax.com>,
> lunch@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
> 
>> *From:* Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
>> *Date:* Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:24:39 -0500
>>
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:25 +0100 (BST), richard@rmeredith.co.uk (Richard
>> Meredith) wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> In article <dv3v641nlblt9lrl26j45pnb5v085e8m9o@4ax.com>,
>>> lunch@nofreelunch.us (Free Lunch) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Atheists, theists - what's the difference? They're both equally 
>>>> dogmatic
>>>>> that what they happen to believe is the one and only version of 
>> the >> truth,
>>>>> despite a complete inability to prove it - or even put up a 
>> decent >> set of
>>>>> repeatable and verifiable evidence that supports their position.
>>>> What rubbish. Atheists say they don't believe in gods. The lack of
>>>> evidence for gods is sufficient not to believe in them. It is not
>>>> necessary for atheists to prove that gods do not exist to not 
>> believe >> in
>>>> them. Do you believe in Thor because you cannot prove he does not 
>>>> exist?
>>> I don't believe in Thor but that doesn't give me any authority to 
>> insist
>>> on his nonexistence to someone who does: if someone does, or claims 
>> to,
>>> that's their business and none of mine. The atheists who have the 
>> marked
>>> similarity to theists are not those who happen not to share the 
>> beliefs
>>> of the theists, but are content to let them believe whatever they 
>> want to,
>>> but those who get in longwinded, dogmatic and frequently ill-tempered
>>> arguments about who is right, despite neither side having any real
>>> evidence either that they are right or that their opponent is wrong.
>> Once again, you erroneously equate the lack of evidence that the 
>> theists
>> have with the lack of evidence that those who reject the doctrine of 
>> the
>> theists. They are not equivalent. In all analysis of whether A exists,
>> it is appropriate and necessary to start with the assumption that A 
>> does
>> not exist and find evidence to disprove it. You defend silly claims, 
>> the
>> flakier the better, because there is no evidence that the silly claim 
>> is
>> false. 
> 
> If a claim is silly then evidence will exist that it is silly. If no such
> evidence exists there is no justification for describing it as silly.

That is not true.

Consider the claim that "somewhere in the universe, exist fluorescent 
green unicorns."

No evidence that I know of exists to *either* support *or* refute that 
statement.


> Your argument,

Yoi argument, therefire is based o a false premise.

> therefore, is one of defending prejudice, since you are
> assuming that the position you are attacking is silly, without evidence
> that it is anything of the sort.
> 

Quite quite wring in that statement as well.
The atheist positiopn is that the concept of god adds nothing to a 
logical analysis of the universe, and therefore is simply irrelevant.



> There is an equal lack of evidence that the doctrines of theists and
> strong atheists are correct; 

Atheist are adoctrinal. With no beleifs to support, there is no need of 
doctrine.

>in the lack of such evidence there is no
> justification for assuming that there is any fundamental difference in
> the status of a viewpoint supported by faith.
> 

The real difference beweena theist and an atheist, is the theist 
supports a position by faith, an atheist reduces his position to the 
minimum necessary to be consistent with observed facts, and still 
produce repeatble results from repeatable experiments.

If every time an atheist dropped on his knees and prayed to God, a 104 
DBa voice thundered from the heavens, there would be some evidence to 
support the theists position. In the absence of any such results, the 
atheist simply describes the whole concept as at best, irrelevant, since 
it adds nothing, and at worst, a completely false concept, that is 
manifestly not supported by any experiment you can try to prove it.

Te thist simply has put the Bible and doctrine as a priori, the atheist 
puts his experience of the world first. Hence they arrive at totally 
different worldviews.

The fact that they do suggests that one of these two a priori 
assumptions AT LEAST is flawed and incomplete, if not downright wrong.

That is, a LITERAL  interpretation of the bible is inconsistent with a 
rational worldview.

I am very happy to modify tteh interpretation of the bible so that it 
does at least show no incompatibilities with a rational worldview, but 
neither the scienetists nor the theists will thank me for it.







>