Piece of Cake
Found this nonsense at ravingatheist.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Assumptions - Sun, Jul 21, 2002
Welcome to the first Rave of The Raving Atheist.
The following are the basic assumptions behind any pronouncements made in this blog:
First, there is no God. In fact, all definitions of the word "God" are either self-contradictory, incoherent, meaningless or refuted by empirical, scientific evidence. Although the nature of the disproof will necessarily vary with the god under review, I will usually be raving against the modern monotheistic (or triune) Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, having (in various permutations) the characteristics of being, conscious, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-good (omnibenevolent), immaterial, transcendent. immutable, immortal, infinite, omnipresent, disembodied and eternal.
Such a god is as much a contradiction in terms as a square circle, and thus logically impossible, for numerous reasons including the following:
1) Omnipotence is impossible because God would, at a minimum, be unable to limit his powers, e.g., make a stone he cannot lift; if he could make such a stone, then his inability to lift it would defeat his omnipotence
2) God's omnipotence conflicts with his omniscience, because if God knows everything that is going to happen in advance, he cannot do anything in the present; he must simply watch the future unfold as previously foreseen, because changing anything would falsify his prior belief concerning the future;
3) God's omnipotence precludes him from having knowledge of any sensations or emotions associated with weakness, e.g., fear, frustration, despair, sickness, etc., and thus conflicts with him omniscience;
4) God's omniscience precludes him from having knowledge of any emotions associated with surprise or anticipation, and thus conflicts with itself;
5) God's omniscience conflicts with his disembodiedness, since a being without a body could not know how to drive, swim, or perform any activity associated with having a body;
6) God's omniscience conflicts with his omnibenevolence, since a morally perfect god could not have knowledge of feelings of hate, lust, or envy, or cruelty, etc.
7) God's omniscience and omnipotence conflict with his omnibenevolence, since a god who could prevent evil would do so unless he were unable to do so or unaware of the evil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he even understands the words he is using. It's not exactly his fault. I blame modern evangelicalism. It doesn't seem to understand these words, but talks as if it does. And that is the problem. It has tried to make God fit into a logical system, thereby giving atheists the ability to do likewise. It's quite funny actually, they use dogma from the Bible to "prove" that God is not logical when the Bible clearly teaches that He is not logical. Read the book of Job. The early church fathers coined these words for the very purpose of illustrating that fact.
Congratulations! You just proved something that the Holy Scriptures teach; and something I already believe!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Atheism is not merely one possible theological theory among many. Rather, it is the only true, provable theory, and all other religious theories are false and delusional. The mere fact that you believe or have faith that god exists does not make it so, anymore than unicorns, ghosts, leprechauns would exist simply because you believed in them or had faith in them. Nor does the fact that you have a legal right to believe in god prove that god exists. Similarly, the fact that American law purports to be "neutral" as between theism and atheism does not mean that the theories are equally plausible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does your world view deal with infinite regress?
How is it that you have proven a universal negative?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, because there is no god, any attempt to premise moral, social or political doctrine upon a belief in god is fruitless and potentially harmful. Laws, judicial decisions or social policies , which promote, accept or accommodate religious beliefs proceed upon false premises and may have harmful and unfair effects. The law should employ the same standards of logic and evidence in evaluating claims based on religious assertions that it does in adjudicating (and frequently rejecting) claims based on every other type of ideology and belief. In fact, the law should be governed by a militantly rationalistic and atheistic presumption that discourages all forms of irrational and superstitious conduct to the extent it conflicts, as it frequently does, with the general welfare or individual rights.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know logic is true? You believing in it doesn't make it true. How do you know it is not an illusion? Your faith in logic is no different than my faith in God.
Define harmful and unfair. How do you decide what they are? Can you do it without starting from an absolute? If so, how is it that a universe that came into being by chance have any objective standard? If not, how can there be an absolute moral law without an absolute moral law giver?
How do you deal with the law of non-contradiction?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, any person asserting a special individual right or attempting to dictate social policy based about a belief in god must first 1) define the god, 2) prove that the god exists and 3) demonstrate how the right or policy follows from the belief in god. Because there is no god, nobody will ever be able to do this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how you guys apply laws to others that you don't apply to your-selves.
They like to think that they have the philosophical high ground, but they don't. As Emmanuel Kant showed us: the only thing that philosophy has proven is that God can neither be scientifically proven or disproved. Either way, It all comes down to faith. Just like the title to this dribble says: basic assupmtions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Assumptions - Sun, Jul 21, 2002
Welcome to the first Rave of The Raving Atheist.
The following are the basic assumptions behind any pronouncements made in this blog:
First, there is no God. In fact, all definitions of the word "God" are either self-contradictory, incoherent, meaningless or refuted by empirical, scientific evidence. Although the nature of the disproof will necessarily vary with the god under review, I will usually be raving against the modern monotheistic (or triune) Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, having (in various permutations) the characteristics of being, conscious, all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), all-good (omnibenevolent), immaterial, transcendent. immutable, immortal, infinite, omnipresent, disembodied and eternal.
Such a god is as much a contradiction in terms as a square circle, and thus logically impossible, for numerous reasons including the following:
1) Omnipotence is impossible because God would, at a minimum, be unable to limit his powers, e.g., make a stone he cannot lift; if he could make such a stone, then his inability to lift it would defeat his omnipotence
2) God's omnipotence conflicts with his omniscience, because if God knows everything that is going to happen in advance, he cannot do anything in the present; he must simply watch the future unfold as previously foreseen, because changing anything would falsify his prior belief concerning the future;
3) God's omnipotence precludes him from having knowledge of any sensations or emotions associated with weakness, e.g., fear, frustration, despair, sickness, etc., and thus conflicts with him omniscience;
4) God's omniscience precludes him from having knowledge of any emotions associated with surprise or anticipation, and thus conflicts with itself;
5) God's omniscience conflicts with his disembodiedness, since a being without a body could not know how to drive, swim, or perform any activity associated with having a body;
6) God's omniscience conflicts with his omnibenevolence, since a morally perfect god could not have knowledge of feelings of hate, lust, or envy, or cruelty, etc.
7) God's omniscience and omnipotence conflict with his omnibenevolence, since a god who could prevent evil would do so unless he were unable to do so or unaware of the evil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think he even understands the words he is using. It's not exactly his fault. I blame modern evangelicalism. It doesn't seem to understand these words, but talks as if it does. And that is the problem. It has tried to make God fit into a logical system, thereby giving atheists the ability to do likewise. It's quite funny actually, they use dogma from the Bible to "prove" that God is not logical when the Bible clearly teaches that He is not logical. Read the book of Job. The early church fathers coined these words for the very purpose of illustrating that fact.
Congratulations! You just proved something that the Holy Scriptures teach; and something I already believe!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Atheism is not merely one possible theological theory among many. Rather, it is the only true, provable theory, and all other religious theories are false and delusional. The mere fact that you believe or have faith that god exists does not make it so, anymore than unicorns, ghosts, leprechauns would exist simply because you believed in them or had faith in them. Nor does the fact that you have a legal right to believe in god prove that god exists. Similarly, the fact that American law purports to be "neutral" as between theism and atheism does not mean that the theories are equally plausible.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does your world view deal with infinite regress?
How is it that you have proven a universal negative?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, because there is no god, any attempt to premise moral, social or political doctrine upon a belief in god is fruitless and potentially harmful. Laws, judicial decisions or social policies , which promote, accept or accommodate religious beliefs proceed upon false premises and may have harmful and unfair effects. The law should employ the same standards of logic and evidence in evaluating claims based on religious assertions that it does in adjudicating (and frequently rejecting) claims based on every other type of ideology and belief. In fact, the law should be governed by a militantly rationalistic and atheistic presumption that discourages all forms of irrational and superstitious conduct to the extent it conflicts, as it frequently does, with the general welfare or individual rights.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you know logic is true? You believing in it doesn't make it true. How do you know it is not an illusion? Your faith in logic is no different than my faith in God.
Define harmful and unfair. How do you decide what they are? Can you do it without starting from an absolute? If so, how is it that a universe that came into being by chance have any objective standard? If not, how can there be an absolute moral law without an absolute moral law giver?
How do you deal with the law of non-contradiction?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, any person asserting a special individual right or attempting to dictate social policy based about a belief in god must first 1) define the god, 2) prove that the god exists and 3) demonstrate how the right or policy follows from the belief in god. Because there is no god, nobody will ever be able to do this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how you guys apply laws to others that you don't apply to your-selves.
They like to think that they have the philosophical high ground, but they don't. As Emmanuel Kant showed us: the only thing that philosophy has proven is that God can neither be scientifically proven or disproved. Either way, It all comes down to faith. Just like the title to this dribble says: basic assupmtions.
posted by Geoff at 11:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home