Tom,

Hmm.. I guess Ed Leafe lied to me when he admitted to me that athiesm was indeed based upon faith a few years back. At least Ed is honest.

The real problem here is that people do not want the truth, not that it's unknowable. To hold a position apart from exclusively intellectual 'proof' is, in fact, a position based upon a premise that cannot be proven, given the narrow scope of the word definition. IOW, it's a position taken on faith.

If, in fact "the rest of the world" holds that position I contend that, in fact, the rest of the world is wrong. The funny thing here is that you seem to be accusing me of exactly what others are, in fact, doing; defining terms to suite them. Faith in a material-only position, given the abundant evidence that exists to the contrary seems more like hiding one's head in a hole than accepting reality and the far larger body of individuals who 'believe' to the contrary.

Let me explain one more time. Perhaps by asking you to 'prove' to me, via the scientific method, that yesterday existed. You show me newspapers or some such thing and I'll show you several thousands of extant documents that combine to assert that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Using your standard, should that be the one you choose, I can prove my point and yet, using the exact same mmethods for both you will find people using only the one that suites them. That's irrational. I contend that there is far more 'proof' for the existence of god than against. That people choose to not see this is, I suppose, sad.

Prove the concept of self-sacrificing love in a material-only world. Silly goose..




>Doug;
>
>You have your own reality and it does not agree with the rest of the world. Atheism is not faith based but is material based. Faith is not a part of atheism. Atheists believe in the world as it appears before them and not something that is faith based.
>
>Your terms may not agree with the rest of the world and your beliefs change nothing about reality outside of your own thoughts. The argument you present is illogical as it is not defined correctly. You have taken an incorrect premise and extended it to a position to “prove your point”.
>
>An atheist does not try to or have to disprove the existence of God. An atheist tells someone who believes in God, “Show me proof”! It is the responsibility of the believer to show the atheist material proof of the existence of God. How many atheists have you convinced of God’s existence and what proof was used? Would or did an atheist have “faith” in your example or examples?
>
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Doug,
>>>snip
>>>>
>>>>Athiests can no more prove the absence of the existence of god via intellect only that believers can prove his existence by intellect only. Both sides require a postion of faith. Faith equals religious belief. That is, a position held to by more than raw logic. Athiesm is a religious system, just as much as we "Bible thumping maniacs" <bg> may have. There does exist an athiest dogma you know...
>>>>
>>>>The participants all should at least have the honesty to have a level playing field don't you think?
>>>>
>>>The above has been playing on my mind since I read it a few days ago.
>>>I think that your assertion that "Athiesm is a religious system..." is incorrect, though it is a slick way to get to your argument.
>>
>>I suppose we might disagree here. The 'trick' IMO Jim is the definition of that word - 'religion'. I see mine not restricted by the 'traditional' points of view. Personally, I think some folks worship on the golf greens. <g>
>>
>>>
>>>That's like saying that anyone who does not program a computer in VB or C++ or VFP or ASM or any of the host of other languages, and who indeed doesn't even care to touch a computer as s/he lives his/her life, is, nevertheless, a Computer Programmer! And even more so if they declare that they hate computers and that they will do their utmost to never touch a computer through their entire lives.
>>
>>No.. That's like not thinking that embedded systems is programming. Rather than an Apostle's Creed it may be the NBA rule book for example.
>>
>>>
>>>Athiests, though I too feel sorrow for them, are NOT practising any form of any "religion". To twist things to say that they are is nonsensical.
>>
>>Sure they are. It's ordered, it has its dogmas and is a position held by faith, not pure intellect. They can no more prove the absence of the existence of god via intellect alone as one can provr his existnce by it. IOW, theirposition is faith-based. Challenge those dogmas and I dare say the reaction is as virulent as many in the various religious orders and camps.
>>
>>>
>>>And by the way... introducing the requirement to disprove God by intellect only is also tampering with the playing field.
>>
>>Not really. If you make an assertion you should be either willing to prove it or be honest enough to admit it's still a theory. Like evolution; it's taught as fact but it isn't when you look at each piece.
>>
>>>Athiests seem perfectly happy to look for real PROOF of the existence of God and use its absence to prove their point.
>>
>>So, the world really is flat as we haven't discovered astronomy or speherical geometry yet? <g> This statement only seems IMO to illustrate the utter arrogance of mankind.
>>
>>>Because believers can only 'prove' His existence through intellect only (any "proof" requires faith) then you mandate that the athiests must also play in that field.
>>
>>I cannot prove god's existence only through the use of my intellect. He's far far more than that and on the face of it it seems absurd to think that a finite mind (mine) can understand the infinite. Also IMO an arrogant stance. No.. I'd say that after looking at the alternatives my positionis the most reasonable. Are there some things I cannot prove but yet believe? You bet! Neither can the athiest prove their position.
>>
>>>Seems unfair to me.
>>
>>Not really. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standard as everyone else is?
>>
>>Thanks for the opinions though. <s>