On 1/11/2013 9:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 1/11/2013 2:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


    On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, <spudboy...@aol.com 
<mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>>
    wrote:

        In a message dated 1/11/2013 2:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
        jasonre...@gmail.com <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com> writes:

            1) Choose some religion, it doesn't matter which
            2) Find an idea some adherents of that religion put forward but 
almost no
            one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent
            3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one religion 
that all
            ideas found in all religions are false and/or unscientific
            4) Bask in the feeling of superiority over those who are not so 
enlightened

            Jason

        Ok, so in Darwinian fashion you sort through hundreds of faiths, so what
        happens when you cannot dissprove a religion? You sort them down till 
you hit a
        toughie, does that make it automatically correct, or is it the 
intellectual
        limitation of the sorter? Your Basking, is angering many non-believers, 
even.
        Witness Higg's criticism of Dawkins. Believers, Jason, I suppose will 
merely,
        pray for your soul (poor lad!).
        Perhaps if you decided to create your own religion, that couldn't be 
disproved,
        based on physics, or math, you would be coming up with the best faith? 
Then we
        could all be converted to being Jasonites. Or Reschers-whichever you 
prefer?


    I'm nor sure I understand your point.  My point was only that John's 
adherence to
    atheism, which he defines as belief in no Gods, is less rational than 
someone
    following his 4-step program to become a liberal theologian.

    In particular, it is the above step 3, rejecting all religious ideas as 
false
    without giving the idea a fair scientific evaluation, which is especially
    problematic.  John is perhaps being prescient in turning a blind eye to 
these other
    ideas, as otherwise we might have the specter of a self-proclaimed atheist 
who
    finds scientific justification for after lives, reincarnation, karma, 
beings who
    exercise complete control over worlds of their design and creation, as well 
as
    a self-existent changeless infinite object responsible for the existence of 
all
    reality.

    He would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying 
specific
    instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.

    But your parody fails as a serious argument because the ideas put forward 
by *almost
    all theists* include a very powerful, beneficent, all knowing superbeing 
who will
    judge and reward and punish souls in an after life and who answers prayers.


Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God. I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition.

"Every facet"?? It's only the standard, three omni's of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam except I left the requirements even weaker, plus answering prayers. You're just being obtuse. You know perfectly well that's what theism means.

Even between various sects of Christianity and Islam, views differ regarding whether or not God is all knowing. An all-knowing God implies predestination, which is contested between various groups.

    Now some, far from powerful, humans with far from complete information, 
eliminated
    smallpox from the world.  God therefore must have had that power and simply 
chose
    not to do it.  So if any very powerful, very knowledgeable superbeing 
exists, it is
    not beneficent and not an acceptable judge of good and evil.  These are not 
just a
    peripheral idea of theisms and it's falsehood is not a minor point because 
all
    theism insist that these ideas are definitive of their religion.


It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault with; it only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is why I think it is an untenable and illogical position.

But there can't be even 'one correct theism' as I pointed out above, the very definition of theism allows it to be empirically falsified by the appearance of unnecessary evil, in my example evil that mere human beings had the power to eliminate and did eliminate. What can you say about a superbeing who can eliminate an evil but chooses not to. You can't say he's the beneficent God of theism.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to