Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13830Re: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    Mar 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      What is proof? Answer: very high probability.



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Gillespie William
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:54 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny



      "Belief" is something one claims is true without any proof. Scientists "don't believe something is true or not true. They demand proof that something is or is not true. True Atheists don't believe because "believe, and belief" require delusions, hallucinations, dreams, and all areas of self hypnosis in which even the consideration of proof is denied as important.

      Babies are born ATheists. Its only the implantation of belief, delusions, and the like whereby children begin to "believe" not based on proof, evidence, facts, or the physical world...but through brainwashing, hypnosis, and constant repetition....reinforced through threats, extortion and blackmail that if they do not "believe" in god/Jesus...they will go to hell.

      A True Atheist concludes there is no god...because after 13.5 billion years of cosmological history, and 10,000 years of religious history...there is no proof of a god.

      What is a god? A god is something that can interrupt the laws of physics, change the consequences of actions...which is another word for "magic."

      A god performs magic...and magic has never, ever been proven to exist or be possible, not once in 13.5 billion years.

      Therefore, its very EASY to CONCLUDE there is no god ...being a NONBELIEVER is a very natural state of of mind.

      j

      ________________________________
      From: Johnny Hawkins <divineelectric@...>
      To: "deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com" <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 23:12
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny



      I agree with that.

      ________________________________
      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:36 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny


      "non-believer" = one who simply doesn't believe what YOU believe. The you could be anyone. "agnostic" = lacking a particular belief, not necessarily disbelief. "exist" = physical reality. So you need to use a different word for "supernatural existence" which is an oxymoron. You could say just "real," since that could apply to anything believed. A truly open-minded person would never say lack of belief in a god is confirmable, or confirmed. It's not a matter of logic. It is a matter of philosophy, and oh by the way also science. You gave the proper term: "simply don't believe." That's it. Hoila. But denying is ok too, meaning since I don't know it, I simply deny it UNTIL I am shown otherwise.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Johnny Hawkins
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:58 PM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Those who doubt vs. those who deny

      Well, I see my definitions are one problem in our communication.
      I was using agnostic referring to nonbelievers who don't state factually that God does not exist. You call this atheist, is that right? I have no problem with that position.
      The only thing I'm questioning is those who say His nonexistence is somehow confirm-able. I expected believers and non-believers alike to agree on the basic flaw of that logic.
      So what terminology would you use to distinguish those who deny from people who simply don't believe?

      --- On Sun, 3/25/12, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      From: bestonnet_00 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Atheism vs. Agnosticism
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday, March 25, 2012, 2:49 PM

      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, Johnny Hawkins wrote:

      >

      > Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the

      > knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine

      > percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet discovered, that

      > there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?

      That doesn't justify believing in a god so atheism would still make perfect sense if the 1% of your knowledge didn't contain any evidence of a god.Statements about 99% of something based on knowledge of 1% makes "perfect" sense? That means your definition of perfect allows for things to surpass perfection, like statements on 98% based on 2%.

      > If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold

      > in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I

      > need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that

      > there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any

      > store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If

      > there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and

      > I have no basis for it.

      Which is why non-existence is assumed when there is no evidence, thus why atheism is the default unless proven otherwise (seems to me you don't actually know what the terms mean, the very subject you used even indicates that).

      I'm in complete agreement with your phrasing, "non-existence is assumed." As far as it seeming to you that I "don't actually know what the terms mean," that's just a terminology issue, not a weakness or strength in either of our positions on the issue. Your use actually, very, and even imply you think quite highly of the point.

      > To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute

      > statement.

      One doesn't have to say that to not believe in a god.My point exactly! My first letter was an effort to say, "One doesn't have to deny God to not believe in a god." And also that such a factual claim would require either omniscience or assumption.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 63 messages in this topic