(DAVE 5/24) Darrel: Please note Michael's definition of "atheism" -
the denial of any god. It's very refreshing to see that Michael Savoia
has an honest understanding of what atheism is and doesn't play around
with meanings and contexts to compliment his beliefs (if in fact he is an
atheist).>>
DAR 5/26
Playing around with meanings is actually your pastime. But I will
continue to set you straight. Mostly for the benefit and enjoyment of
others.
DAVE
Although, he probably is using "Webster's", or some reputable
dictionary, like most people and not "Henshell's" or "Till's" or
"Fisher's" etc. (by the way, what book store can these be purchased
in?).
DAR
Once again, ad nauseam, my Webster's has:
Webster's:
atheism: <a-,without + theos, god: see theo] 1. the belief that there is no
God, or denial that God or gods exist 2 godlessness
CAN YOU READ DAVE? Did you see the "BELIEF THAT THERE
IS NO GOD" part. I believe that there is no God. This is because I know
of NO good evidence for a God. This goes double for your Yahweh
brand.
For the record I have sent poor Dave atheist FAQ's and extensive
encyclopedia explanations but he still cannot understand something so
simple. Dave you must just be incredibly dense or dishonest. Sorry.
I am an atheist. I am godless. I am not a -- theist. I very much believe
that there is no God and the reason is because I know of no good
reason to believe in a God. Same goes for warewolves.
a - root meaning without
(from the Greek actually. The Greek dictionary I check said: "a = not")
theism - belief in a deity
DAVE
To this day, I have witnessed many claim that they are atheists, but only
Jerry Friedman and Lance Cote have ever had the bazookas to back
their claim of atheism up with the assertion that there "is no god"
DAR
You are such a simpleton Dave. Consider this. You have the
distinction of being the only person so profoundly dense, incapable of
learning and boring that Farrell won't even read your posts. And he read
miles and miles of Ronal Baker's which I thought were profoundly
dense and boring.
Here again is some information I have posted before on this. From an
encyclopedia on AOL:
*atheism
Nonbelief in, or the positive denial of, the existence of a God
or gods.
DAR
STOP. DAVE YOU IGNORANT HOCKEY PUCK, did you see the:
"*****"NONBELIEF IN**** or..."
Did you catch that part? Read it again if necessary. Print it out and
paste it on your freaking forehead. "Or Nonbelief" in god. I DON'T
BELIEVE IN A GOD. I am in the category of "Nonbelief in... the
existence of a God or gods". WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT ABOUT THIS
THAT YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND!?
Continue, it gets better:
"A related concept is agnosticism. Like theism, its
opposite, atheism cannot be proved or disproved conclusively.
Perhaps the strongest atheistic argument concerns the existence
of evil, which is hard to reconcile with the notion (in
Christianity and other religions) that the world was created by
an omnipotent, all-loving God. Theologians have responded with a
variety of theodicies, or justifications for the existence of
evil.
Buddhism has been called an atheistic religion since it does not
postulate any supreme being. The Jains are similarly atheistic,
and so are those who adopt the Sankhya system of philosophy in
Hinduism. Following the revolution of 1917 the USSR and later
communist states, such as Albania, adopted an atheist position.
Dogmatic atheism asserts that there is no God. Sceptical atheism
maintains that the finite human mind is so constituted as to be
incapable of discovering that there is or is not a God. Critical
atheism holds that the evidence for theism is inadequate. This is
akin to philosophical atheism, which fails to find evidence of a
God manifest in the universe. Speculative atheism comprises the
beliefs of those who, like the German philosopher Kant, find it
impossible to demonstrate the existence of God.
--(c) Copyright Helicon Publishing Limited 1996
DAR
Skeptical, critical, whatever. I do not believe in your Yahweh or any
other god and am therefore an atheist. I was born that way. Like with
everyone, the god idea was artificially induced later.
DAVE
Oh yes, and I forgot Michael Fisher, the law man who, when asked
something specific, continually claims that he doesn't know anything
EXCEPT that there is no God (Yahweh)
DAR
What a blatant lie. Michael Fisher, who has forgotten more than you
will ever learn, has never claimed: "that he doesn't know anything
EXCEPT that there is no God (Yahweh)". What horseshit.
DAVE
and that the Bible is false - well, if he doesn't know anything concrete
about these matters, against what frame of reference is he making this
unsubstantiated assertion? - himself? Wow, what an authority
that is.
DAR
I agree that Michael Fisher is an authority. I also observe that you
cannot even begin to deal with his arguments. Any of them. You never
have and never will. It's like watching David and Goliath (intellectually)
and you misplaced your stone.
As Ralph tried to teach you, the Bible is not "false", just parts of it.
This would be expected from a written work put together by many
uninspired humans. It would not be expected if it was the inspired by
an almighty CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.
DAVE
Darrel, this is about the time you should bring up your IPU response -
seems as good as any
DAR
I agree. Your Yahweh is as demonstrable as an invisible pink unicorn
and I see as much evidence for one as the other. And you probably
know it.
DAVE
- you are one of my favourite agnostics though, I must say.
DAR
And you are one of the most dense Xians I know.
While I can respect those who hold the agnostic position, I am an
atheist and have been proud of that fact for about a year now. You can
say what you want. I don't think anyone takes you seriously anymore
anyway. As Farrell astutely observed:
TILL
"I will be very blunt with you, Dave. Your brother was a yellow-bellied
coward, who turned tail and ran when he saw that the evidence for
biblical inerrancy could not be refuted. However, I will say this much
for him. He was at least intelligent enough to run. His brother [Dave,
that means you] has no more sense than to remain on the list and daily
make a fool of himself."
For those who may be new to the list and might be confused by your
distortions, here are some of my favorite instances of Michael Fisher
demolishing you on this very subject.
Enjoy:
***
Dave< How can you deny a creator, without suitable reason to.
Argument from *Ignorance
MWF
It's time for those latin phrases you hate so much.
Argument Ad Ignoratio. Fallacy of equivocation.
Deny has two definitions which are of importance here:
1) to refuse to accept the existence, truth or validity of or
acknowledge claims of
2) to give a negative answer to
There is no positive evidence that the universe is a created thing,
thus I give a negative answer to the question of "Does God exist?". That
is an existential question, being such there should be positive existential
reasons to accept it as true before one affirms it as such; there being no
positive evidence, I must then not affirm the statement as true.
Thus in the sense of definition 2 above, and only in the sense of
question 2, I "deny" a creator.
You then however fall into the fallacy of equivocation and use
"deny" in the sense of definition 1, which implies a refusal to
acknowledge the very existence of the claim, from the dictionary again:
"DENY implies a firm refusal to accept as true, to grant or concede, or
to acknowledge the existence or claims of ", i.e., to refuse to
acknowledge even a legitimate claim supported by substantial evidence.
But that is not what I am doing.
There is no evidence. I will not give assent to an existential
statement without evidence. Whether that involves loose moose in
places they don't belong, or fairies,--or gods.
This shift in the meaning of "deny" is the fallacy of equivocation.
To assert the existence of a creator simply because no one can
"prove" he doesn't exist as described, is the fallacy of the argument ad
ignoratio. --Micheal Fisher
"God exists" is an existential statement. It implies existence of a
particular thing to which the noun "god" is being attached.
Before I need accept the truth of any existential statement, I am
well within my intellectual rights to demand at least some evidence that
the statement might be true that at least amounts to more than whatever
evidence there is that it might be false.
So far, the conflicting existential claims of competing religions
is alone enough to throw profound doubt on the entire concept of
supernatural beings. Modern science gives solid evidence against
anything supernatural being at work anywhere in the universe, now or
in the past.
So the idea of "god" adds nothing to my store of knowledge. It
explains nothing that can't be just as easily explained another way.
So just as "phlogiston" and "aether" were abandoned as irrelevant,
so too I simply abandon the "god" concept as having no evidence for its
truth and no utility in explaining anything about the universe.
--Michael Fisher
I no more need to prove atheism than I need to prove that there is
no invasion fleet of chlorine breathing monsters on its way to earth
from the Andromeda galaxy. If a god existed, it would be an important
fact--but then if there's an invasion fleet from Andromeda on its way
that's pretty important also.
However, since there is not a shred of evidence for either, I don't
worry about them. --Michael W. Fisher 11/30
***
Keep sticking your head up once in a while Dave, you seem to enjoy
or remain incognizant of having it lopped off, and I am certainly glad to
participate. If not for your benefit then just to keep my chops up.
cheers,
Darrel
----------------------
"For centuries men have fought in the most unusual and devious
ways to prove the existence of a God. But evidently a God, if
there were a God, has been hiding out. He has never been
discovered or proved. One would think a God, if any, should
have revealed himself unmistakably. Isn't this non-appearance of
a God (the non- appearance of a God in the shape of a single bit
of evidence for his existence) a pretty, strong, sufficient proof of
non-existence?"
[E. Haldeman-Julius, "The Meaning Of Atheism"]
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a
proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who
believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar
level to the evidence on the werewolf question." [John
McCarthy]