On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb <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> wrote:
>>> In a message dated 1/11/2013 2:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> 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. 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.
An MWI block universe in which the past and future are computed once
and for all would be something like an all-knowing god.
But such a universe lacks consciousness and the need for a god as well.
Perhaps that is why many physicists like MWI
>> 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.
>> John didn't say that all religions are false or unscientific. His point
>> was that you can avoid those attributes by becoming a *liberal theologian* -
>> and incidentally that nothing follows from liberal theology.
> It was in another thread that John said that he "just believes in one less
> god" than I do, but he refused to say what that one God was that I believed
> in but he doesn't.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at