Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:30:21 EST
From: <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Asserting No Gods
 <1992Nov6.164252.27622@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <92312.020054MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Nov07.201705.17726@bmerh85.bnr.ca>

In article <1992Nov07.201705.17726@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca
(Douglas Graham) says:
>
>In article <92312.020054MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>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

Ok, there is where I thought I was being clear. Guess I should have not
pointed out the belief in no god in particular. But I figured, "as do the
rest of your assertions" would clear that up.

>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.

Yes, because they are! Have people been throwing in any philosophical
ramifications to having a belief in invisible pink unicorns? If they
did, well, I missed it. However, there are quite a few god-believers
who want me damned to hell, so I think that that needs cleared up first.

>>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?

No, I think it's wrong for the reason I pointed out already. What I do
mean there is that since there are more of them, they should be dealt with
before believers in etc.-unicorns. I certainly don't mean "oh, there's so
many of them, they must be right."

>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.

Probably haven't read them. Oh, and thank you for implying I don't read
any of this board at all. But I'm sure it must have taken quite a bit
of reasoning, perhaps circular, to prove that one can believe baselessly
and still be right somehow.

>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.

Ok, since you couldn't guess, I'll tell you. I don't think it's rational
to assume etc.-unicorns don't exist. What I do is, when the topic avails
itself, is think "nope, haven't seen any yet. oh well." and move on.
Whether or not they exist, they (or their believers) will have to get my
attention for me to bother thinking about them, though.

>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.

Okay, enough of your implying. They're all silly. Happy? All those
unfounded beliefs--xianity, atheism, a-unicornism, etc.--all silly.
Oh whoops, maybe I should include them all so you don't think I'm
singling anyone out...The only way I treat the god question differently
is that I have to answer it more often.

>>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?

To be honest, it's not my problem. It's your unfounded belief, and it's
your problem rationalizing and proving it. Why should I try to explain
_your_ belief, since I don't share it? I'd just give my "idea" of it,
and you'd probably claim it's something else to stall. All I see is
the unfounded belief. I stop there.

>>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?

Neither is rational.

Martin Schulte