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 <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 
            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 
        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 
adherence to
    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 
exists, it
    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 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.

Even the Christian Thomists were aware that God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient (unless inconsistent).

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 sense. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to