On 13 Jan 2013, at 02:53, meekerdb wrote:

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> 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 enlightened

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.

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.

Like when they say that prohibition is good for the health. It is a mini-situation which mimic all the problem when we let people thinking at our place/ Once you accept that theology can use authoritative arguments, this spread on the whole of the human science, including medicine and we pay the strong price (I evaluate roughly the number of people dead by prohibition (since Nixon) close to at least the million).

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 reality.

The point is that all God requires faith, and thus theism. I am agnostic on many religion, but sometimes you can still find the divine inspiration beyond the authoritarian politics.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do
it from religious conviction.
         --- Pascal, Pens'ees

Pascal is right. We cannot do anything by invoking God, as it becomes automatically an argument per authority. If someone want to do something "good", he can do it, and he can say in private that he believes in God. But even in private he cannot say "I believe in God, and so I will do this or that". With comp this is roughly equivalent with lying. No terrestrial action can be justified in his name, not one.



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