On 1/12/2013 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2013, at 07:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/11/2013 9:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/11/2013 2:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, <spudboy...@aol.com
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
one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent
3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one religion
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
a toughie, does that make it automatically correct, or is it the
limitation of the sorter? Your Basking, is angering many non-believers,
Witness Higg's criticism of Dawkins. Believers, Jason, I suppose will
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
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
atheism, which he defines as belief in no Gods, is less rational than
following his 4-step program to become a liberal theologian.
In particular, it is the above step 3, rejecting all religious ideas as
without giving the idea a fair scientific evaluation, which is especially
problematic. John is perhaps being prescient in turning a blind eye to
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
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
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
who will judge and reward and punish souls in an after life and who answers
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,
smallpox from the world. God therefore must have had that power and simply
not to do it. So if any very powerful, very knowledgeable superbeing
is not beneficent and not an acceptable judge of good and evil. These are
just a peripheral idea of theisms and it's falsehood is not a minor point
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
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.
Even the Christian Thomists were aware that God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient
Which is why I was careful in my example to require only that God be very powerful and
very knowledgeable and beneficent - not that he be perfect or 'omni' in any of these
virtues, only that He be much better than we expect people to be.
Anyway, I don't use the term "god" and "religion" or "theology" in the occidental
conventional religion sense. Like I don't use the term "genetics" in the USSR Lyssenko
It is irrational to fight against a field from the fact that the curent proponents are a
bit delirious about it, which can be explained by the human emotion of some, and the
willing of power of others.
On the contrary, it is important to fight against it when it's delirious adherents want to
use the machinery of government to impose their theology.
Today I disbelieve in the politics of health of most countries, but this is because I do
believe in some notion of health.
And I don't believe in the god of theism because I believe in some notion
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do
it from religious conviction.
--- Pascal, Pens'ees
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