From: yohan@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 16 Apr 1992 11:52:40 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu


From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)

In article <sirinINNjel@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@kitty.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W Newton) writes:
> [...]
> The problem is that I don't agree that the almighty banana has as much
> evidence as God. This of course depends on your defintion of evidence.

And on your definition of "God". Does the big "G" imply that you have
a particular god in mind?


Me:

No, nothing particular in mind.  I guess I should have written God(s).  I just
get tired of doing that.  From now on, I'll write "god" which = god(s).


From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)

Even if the data are consistent with a God theory, this consistency alone
can't be called evidence for the God theory if the data are also consistent
with, for example, the Banana theory. The data must provide *differential*
support for the theories.

What is this evidence, why does it support the God theory over the Banana
theory and why does it support the God theory over the Some-other-god theory?

Why are you an agnostic if you think that such evidence exists?


Me:

No, I am agnostic, because I don't think the data exists that proves or disproves
god.  I don't think it is possible to determine god's existence through pure
science.  It is more of the realm of philosophy, and arguements of logic.  A good
example is when someone argued that omnipotence is impossible (can god make a
rock he can't move).  I that that generated some worth while discussion.


From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)

> I can think of many logical reasons against the Grreat banana than for God.
                      ~~~~~~~
Could you list a few?


Me:

Sure.  Fruits, as we know, are not sentient, and I for one have never seen one
make wine from water, blah blah blah :)  My real point is, that this banana, as
you describe it, would be god:  god in the form of a purple banana, but god
none the less.  The banana would be god, because it is the being that created the
universe.

From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)

> If mankind said,
> "well hell, look at z, we might as well give up, there are too many
> possibilities", we wouldn't be wasting lots o' dollars having this
> very conversation. Plus I emphasize that these scientific discussions
> had many REASONABLE hypothesese, of which I doubt the Huge Blue Banana
> was a part of :)

Exactly my point, I think. One shouldn't waste time even *considering*
untestable, unfalsifiable theories in science. As a form of cerebral
mutual masturbation among consenting adults, however, fine.


Me:

Well, we're essentially in agreement.  I want to make sure what I'm saying is
understood.  Essentially, it is:  you don't draw a negative (or positive)
conclusion because there are to many possibilities.  you just say "I don't know".
I agree whole-heartedly when you say that god's existence is a waste of time in a
scientific arena, and I don't plan on doing my senior thesis on the existence of
god.  I don't think I can put it as eloquently as you did, but I do think
philisophical discussions of god's existence are a GOOD waste of time :)


Jon Newton - sophomore in biochemistry - agnostic