NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/atheism/27156

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 8.1 KB | 180 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!rj24
From: [e-mail] (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:00:16 GMT
Lines: 166


In article <[e-mail]> billy writes:
>Daniel Norman Johnson ([e-mail]1) wrote:
>: In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Andrew Tong) writes:
>: >[e-mail]1 (Daniel Norman Johnson) writes:
>: >>On the other hand, if God is a being that is Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent,
>: >>Omniscient, and did all that stuff the Bible sez he did, then he doesn't
>: >>exist. That's logic (proof by contradiction that is- some of the stuff
>: >>in the bible isn't very nice.)
>: >
>
>   This line of thought is typical of atheists and fallacious on at
>least two counts. In the first place you define God in a deliberately
>contradictory manner and then use that definition to "prove" His
>non-exsitence.

If you had a better definition to offer, I am sure that you would have.
Nothing would appear to keep your mouth closed. If you could offer
a non-contradictory definition of god thats allows for an
empirical proof of this god's existance, then by all means, post it.
Until then, you have nothing useful to offer.

>By refusing to acknowledge what is actually claimed,
>and concocting these specious contradictions, the atheist attempts to
>create the illusion of absurdity - it's a cheap rhetorical gimmick.
>The purpose of course is to -appear- clever, the effect is to be
>revealed as dishonest.

This must be the worst case I have eve seen of the pot calling the kettle
black. Please reread what you have written above, and notice how it is
so beautifully self-referential.

>   The second fallacy is the implied assertion that logic is
>sufficient to settle the question. I've seen this argument before, and
>it always seems to be understood as a given; it ain't. Logic is
>especially suited to exposing fallacious reasoning, but has little
>value in establishing the truth of anything. If you find an apparent
>contradiction in the Bible, it may be due to the way you choose to
>interpret it. In the case of atheists and their zeal to discredit the
>Bible, the Bible abounds in contradictions, but they made it clear
>from the outset that they will see only what serves their purposes. If
>you know in advance what conclusions you will accept and reject,
>what's the point of discussion?

This is stupid. According to logic, logic can not be sufficient to prove
every statement true or false. Anyone believing in logic would know how
limited it is.

Atheists simply use certain assumptions, such as Occam's Razor, to make
assumtions when logic is not sufficient. This has nothing to do with logic.

Try rereading the paragraph you wrote above. Notice again that it is
self-referential. You are the one who has started out with your conclusions
to serve your own purposes. You assume the existance of your god, and in
a miracle of circular logic, wish to use the bible to prove it. If you
wish to prove the existance of god from the bible, you must start by
assuming the non-existance of god. You must then show a resulting
contradiction. However, once you assume the nonexistance of god, there
is no reason to take the bible as more than a piece of literary fiction,
in which case no conclusions about reality may be drawn from it, one way
or another.

>
>An example follows:
>
>: >Are you really claiming that the God of the Bible is logically inconsistent?
>:
>: No, I'm claiming that any God that did all the things that God
>: did in the Bible cannot be Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and Omniscient.
>
>   Here our champions seem to be saying that existence in contingent
>on being logically consistent, they neglet to mention why however.
>Every human being I've ever met is logically inconsistent both in
>their reasoning and their behaviour. Am I to believe that none of them
>really existed? Sorry, but there is just no value to this kind of
>statement.

This must be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen writen.
The existance of a god with contradictory characteristics is
impossible. Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, and Omniscience as described
in the bible are mutually contradictory properties. For your arguement
to make any sense, you must provide
some aspect of humanity which is contradictory to occasional irrationality.
You don't even mention another characteristic, much less a contradictory
one.

>   At a more fundamental level though, the assumption that logic is
>capable of settling the point is unfounded.

Very few people make this assumption. If you had read the FAQ, you would
know this. Making the above assumption shows a strong atheist position.
The vast majority of atheists I have seen posting to this group are weak
atheists.

>Even if the logic of the
>atheist's were flawless (which of course, it never is), it wouldn't be
        ^^
How can you mention logic when we aren't even applying it to the same
language?

>adequate to establish their prejudice. The fact is, atheists have
>little use for genuinely valid logic; they prefer the most outrageous
>sarcasm and the most offensive ridicule instead; they are as zealous,
>as bigoted and as irrational as any of their enemies.
>

Logic will not sufice to show you that you are wrong when your assumptions
about reality differ from the atheist's. In that case, all that is left is the
possibility of sarcasm and ridicule.

As for being zealous, when is the last time you had someone knock on
your door, trying to convert you to atheism?

Do you consider it bigoted not to want to associate with people who live
in make-believe-fairy-land?

You have yet to show that anyone other than you is irrational.

>An example follows:
>
>: An GAWD did not come to me IN A DREAM, for the IS NO GAWD!! And He DID
>: NOT SPEAK TO ME IN THE DREAM! For the dream, yeas, the dream was about
>: RUTABEGAS IN THE SPRING! Therefore there IS NO GOD. Therefore I say
>: REPENT! Yea, REPENT and join the Church of Jezus Christ of LATTER
>: DAY Teleatheists! Only 19.95 with this special offer, not availiable
>: in stores, and that's not all! You don't just  join the Church of Jezus
>: Christ of Latter Day Teleatheist,, but you also get this amazing Ginsu
>: Holy Book! It's a Bible! It's a Torah! It's a Quran! It opens, it closes,
>: it just sits there!
>

I can see that you don't like sarcasm. You don't know what you are missing.

>   For those of you who may have missed the earlier point about the
>abuse of logic, read on ...
>

Point? there was a point somewhere above? Could you please show it to me?

>: (example: A God which can do *anything* I propose, coherent or not, cannot
>: exist. I can ask him to think of a task that cannot be done, then do it.
>: He can't do that, yet I proposed it. That sort of thing. Also a God
>: which did everything in the Bible, but is omniscicient, omnibenevolent
>: and omnipotent. Such a being would have known in advance that it
>: would regret the Deluge, and would therefore not have done it. Such
>: a being of course would not regret the Deluge unless it was indeed wrong,
>: and not for the best, and all that.)
>
>   This is so childish I am embarrassed for you. I would like to see
>how any of the the preceding paragraph can be rendered intelligble.
>

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is unintelligable.
Perhaps the structure is not perfect, but that is probably due to
factors such as exasperation with your extreme stupidity, as well
as a condecending, sarcastic tone.

>Bill
>

Why post your drek to alt.atheism? Try alt.stupid, or something else more
appropriate. You clearly doo not approach the subject of atheism with
an open mind, nor have you read the FAQ for this group. Try educating
yourself before postin again.

Robert Johnston