[Ham, previously]:
> Yes, and America's leading atheist Richard Dawkins,
> who quoted him in his book 'The God Delusion', defines
> a "delusion" as a persistent false belief held in the face of
> strong contradictory evidence.
>
> What is the contradictory evidence?
[Krimel]:
> Comments like this are what make you impossible to take
> seriously, Ham. "America's leading atheist" is Brit.
Dawkins may be British, but the Arizona U. conference for which this article
is a promotion is in America, and his 'God Delusion" is a best-seller in the
U.S. I think he is the most ardent spokesman for atheist in this country.
[Krimel]:
> An Arizona Star reader, commenting on the article posted
> the following quote from the UK's former leading atheist. The
> quote applies equally well to your entire philosophy of double
> negation sensitive dependence on being whatever...
>
> "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china
> teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be
> able
> to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is
> too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I
> were
> to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an
> intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should
> rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of
> such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth
> every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school,
> hesitation
> to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and
> entitle
> the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or
> of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Ah, yes. Another British intellectual with an ad hominen argument for
atheism! I needn't point out that nowhere in this quotation is there
evidence that contradicts a transcendent source. No one can disprove the
assertion that there's a teapot between Earth and Mars. Does that make the
assertion untrue? God is affirmed in ancient books, taught as sacred truth,
and instilled in the minds of children. Does that make it untrue? Even the
esteemed mathematician would not make such an assertion.
I'd to see Russell's brief on the maxim 'ex nihilo nihil fit'. Perchance
you can find a quote on that bit of logic?
Regards,
Ham
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
