From: epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Assertiveness of Non-divinity
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:37:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct31.190047.8292@u.washington.edu>  
kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger) writes:
> In article <92305.101827MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> >In article <1992Oct30.052707.10617@u.washington.edu>,
> >kruegek@stein.u.washington.edu (Kirby Krueger) says:
> >>
> >>I will argue anyone who says that the belief in no god is
> >>not reasonable.
> >
> >Ok, I say it. So prove how belief in no god is reasonable. Go ahead,
> >prove a negative...
> >
> >Martin Schulte
> Okay, first of all, you'll notice I intentionally avoid the word proof. I
> won't attempt that.  And also, I don't say that belief in no god is accurate,
> but it is a reasonable assumption.  Many of the reasons appear over and over
> again here.  No concrete evidence for a god. 
	
	Science always disallows supernatural explanations based on Occam's  
razor and the general frustration that always results from such explanations of  
observable phenomena.  Therefore, no concrete evidence will ever exist for a  
god.  Science is a tool for examining the natural world.  It is an extremely  
poor tool for thinking about the supernatural.


 Many contradictory beliefs
> about different gods. (Which, IMHO, is proof that some of these are wrong,
> in major respects.)  There really is no objective reason to believe one over
> any other, and it seems obvious to me that at least some of the major modern
> religions must be wrong, being contradicted by others rather extremely.

	Would you say the same about scientific theories under investigation?   
Each different theory contradicts the others at one point or another, yet we  
don't throw them all out.  We try to find which parts of each one are true.

   So,
> either we assume that a specific one is true, that many are true to a certain
> extent but not fully (which undermines the credibility of any specific part
> of that religion - it might be part of the false part.  This option is not
> very useful in practice.)  or none of them are true.  Given no real evidence
> prooving either of these options, we can look at things that tend to point
> one way or another.  Things like evolution, biblical inconsistency, and the
> sheer unbelievability of many events in the bible have led me to believe that
> Christianity in particular, and religion in general, is unlikely.  And, so  
far,
> no one has shown be a reason why atheism is completely unreasonable.

	It seems to me that you are not willing to subject religious ideas to  
the same standards you hold for scientific ones!  Nothing is proved in science  
until everything else has been disproved, and the case is always subject to  
being reopened.  Some speciation theories that have been rejected for decades  
are now coming back with new force based on insect genetics studies, for  
example.  Also, no idea in science is rejected until it has been disproved.  If  
I read you correctly, you demand proof for religious ideas and reject them  
until they have been proved, but will not reject scientific ones in spite of  
many varying theories until they are disproved!  Do I read you right?
						Erik Powers
> 
Newsgroups: alt.atheism