From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Deliberate Ignorance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 23:56:24 GMT

Bill Conner (bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu) wrote:
: 
:    Religion is simply the answer to question we don't understand. If
: we reply correctly, we'd never know. Why would someone attempt to call
: himself reasonable whiie simultaneously proclaiming any certain
: evidence of for or against the existence of God; one of the claims is
: necessarily false. A theist (let's say a Christian) believes himself
: to be possession of the "Truth", which to him means the reality of
: God, the atheist (or agnostic without the courage of his convictions)
: will claim there is no God. There is no way to settle this question.

(Actually, you mistate the athiest position somewhat... an athiest will not
state there is a god, not necessarily that he/she would state there is a god.)

Anyway, why does one need an absolute in an argument?  It would certainly
strengthen the position, but you can make an argument for or against something
that cannot be proven.  What one does need is some commonality, or agreement
between the two arguing.  In religious discussions, for example, both side
usually agree that there are some paths one can take that may be inherently
undesirable (causing physical/psychological suffering, needlessly destruction,
etc.), and effects that can be inherently desirable (bringing happiness, etc.)

:    Any resort to "reason" assumes first that your reasoning is going to
: be acceptable to the other person, which means either that your logic
: is perfect or that you're very persuasive, but your argument must also
: use the terms that the other person can accept.

Exactly.

:    The atheist will say, "You can't prove a negative", yet act and
: debate -as if- the negative, "God does not exist" had been proven.

Only some atheists will say "God does not exist" (myself included), and
besides, who said one can only act and debate on things that are proven.
If it is a belief, and a strong one at that, then we have every right to
assume it is true until someone comes up with as strong, or stronger
evidence to the contrary.

: The
: Christian will say that God does exist and yet act as if He doesn't.

Hmm, I doubt this.  I have met some very admirable christians.

: In each case, there are inherent contradictions; both positions are
: compromised.


:     The tactic of quoting the Bible out of context is a favorite
: fallacy of both the atheist and the believer, and serves only to make
: the whole debate ridiculous. The atheist invents all manner of wildly
: inaccurate appeals to history to "prove" that the God of the
: Christians cannot possibly exist, or if He does, He's nothing like the
: God the Christians worship. This is pure hyperbole and contributes
: nothing. The Christian for his part, makes appeals to all manner of
: supernatural enities whose existence cannot be proved by any means an
: atheist can accept.

How does one quote the bible in context??  Who decides what the context
of some verse or chapter has, and it's meaning?  Even besides this fact,
I believe that not all contradictions in the bible can be shown to be
quotes that are out of context, and not all evidence given for supernatural
entities may be passed over lightly by atheists.  For example, a while back,
the question was asked what evidence it would take to convince an atheist
to change his mind.. one response was a 50 foot jesus marching through
new york..... this kind of evidence, should it happen, would make a very
good case for at least some kind of supernatural entity, though there will
always be those who are skeptical (I for one would just pass it off as another
attack of my insanity. ;)

:    Each is speaking a different language. The atheist demands evidence
: and yet rejects everything offered as evidence, a priori; there is
: just no -admissible- evidence. The Christian claims that God can only
: be known internally, through faith, a concept no atheist can
: comprehend. An atheist and a Christian have no common ground for
: debate, anything either says will sound ludicrous to the other.

That is why we attack the reasons a christian 'knows' god, because it
is not as universal and absolute as they would want to think.

:    What is especially absurd about all this is that each attacks the
: other without ceasing, what after all is the purpose of this
: news-group?

To attack theists without ceasing, and to give theists the opportunity to
attack back without ceasing. ;)

When one is surrounded by people and things that control your life in an
undesirable way, you can either leave, or you can try to change it.  I
think that the second option is the one this newsgroup appeals to.

: That reason is not important to either side is obvious
: from the simple fact that the debate continues. You think you've
: really got it all together, you use multi-syllable words, quote
: obscure sources, try so hard to appear logical, yet the very exitence
: of this group defeats everything you hope to accomkplish. 

Are you certain?  Why?  If nothing else, it feeds the few who thrive on ego,
those who like to talk about philosophy, or gives someone a new word to
use. 

I think this group has accomplished much, if only to give me a lot of different
views, provide references to things I may want to look into further, etc.

: Bill

--
  Trent Tobler