From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 20:17:05 GMT

In article <92312.020054MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (The One and Only) says:
>>
>>You may not understand this, but when Atheists mention God in the same
>>sentence as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny , the Tooth Fairy, and
>>invisible-pink unicorns, it is because they are ALL silly.  The fact
>>that you treat the God question differently than the others means that
>>you have bought into some of what the theists are selling you.  I know
>>that some religionists get very upset when we do this, but we do it in
>>total seriousness to point out the insanity that is religion.
>
>Well, I guess you missed my point. I don't treat any of them as different
>from the others.

Then you're not doing a very good job of explaining your point then.
When you were asked whether an assertion that there is no Santa Claus
or Easter Bunny makes a person hypocritical, you said:

  #Asserting there is no god while attacking the other side for the opposite
  #assertion is hypocritical, as do the rest of your assertions. Simply
  #because some of them are silly isn't going to confuse me.

You didn't say that *all* of God/Santa/Bunny were silly, and you didn't
say that *none* of them were silly.  You said that *some* of them were
silly.  You quite clearly were implying that God is not as silly as
the others, and that the others were just thrown in to confuse you.

>It's just that there are more god-believers running amok
>than invisible-pink-unicorn-believers.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you claiming
that it is wrong to assume that gods do not exist because many people
believe they do?  Don't you see then that jcopelan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
was right; that you *have* bought some of what the theists are selling?

>You may think they're all just
>silly, but what's so rational about assuming none of them exist?

Martin, do you bother reading some of the other articles on this
forum?  Have you read Simon Clippingdale's articles on falsifiablity?
Please do.  It is quite possible that you find them unconvincing, but
if so, you should respond to those articles with intelligent comments.
There is really no need to start the same damn thread over again from
square one.  And please try to stick to the point.  You *still* haven't
explained clearly whether or not you think it rational to assume that
invisible pink unicorns don't exist.

>I'm no theist, but you seem more than happy to lump me in with them
>simply because I disagree with you.

There is no need to get defensive.  He said:

>>The fact that you treat the God question differently than the others means
>>that you have bought into some of what the theists are selling you.

Judging by your evasions and somewhat confusing rhetoric, I'm reasonably
certain that he is right about you treating the God question differently.
If this is not true, please state this clearly.  If it is true, please
provide a coherent explanation of your reasons for thinking this way.
Note that it is perfectly understandable that you might treat the god
question differently because our society treats the god question
differently, and it really does take a good bit of thinking to see
that the gods are just as silly as the pink unicorns.  The fact that
there is a need for a book entitled _Atheism: A philosophical justification_
and not one for a similar volume about Aunicornism is ridiculous in my
opinion.

>You always want the xians to examine their
>unfounded beliefs critically; I'm telling you to have a look at yours.

To be honest, I have no idea how to go about examining my unfounded
belief in no gods.  I don't know how to rationally think about
something when I have no clear description of what that something is.
Perhaps you could provide such a description?  What, exactly, am
I assuming when I assume that no gods exist?

>You casually treat theism as "insanity." What is your unfounded belief
>then? Why is it now rational for atheists to assume as well?

Is it rational to assume that glurfles do not exist?  Is is rational
to assume that they do?
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Newsgroups: alt.atheism