Is this the appointed time? have a look at this message.

[DarkZenMaster]

https://www.apotheosisofman.com/

 

[Devil_666]

 

[Darth Cruel]

Another doomed thread.

 

[mr.thrifty]

 

[devilof76]

==============================================

From: Harry Binswanger ([email protected])
Subject: HBL "Prove there isn't a God"
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:26:57 -0500 (CDT)

From Harry Binswanger

We're all familiar with the theist's refrain: "I can't prove there's a
God, but you can't prove there isn't," with the implication that
theism and atheism are therefore in the same epistemological boat.
He holds that if you are logically entitled to be an atheist, than he is
just as logically entitled to be a theist.

Objectivists will rightly respond by invoking the Burden of Proof
principle. But that depends on this simpler point: belief and non-
belief are not the same.

To believe in God is to commit yourself, in thought and action, to
the existence of God. Atheism is not a form of that. Atheism is not
the belief in some non-God. Atheism is the principled refusal to
credit an idea that has no rational basis and makes no sense.

To make this point to someone, ask him if he is willing to accept
the principle that he needs a reason to justify *not* believing in
things. And if he does, what disproof he has of: flying goats, Old
King Cole, super-intelligent telepathic ants, Zeus, Baal, Ra, and
that his bowl of Cheerios will poison him?

Which is it that reason demands: committing to every idea until they
have been disproved, or committing only to those ideas with rational
support?

What would it even mean, "to believe everything that hasn't been
disproved?" Would you believe both in religions that say the Devil
is real and those that deny that? Can you believe simultaneously in
fighting off the Devil and that there is no Devil?

Belief cannot be the default position, dislodgeable only by disproof.
You cannot take the position that one should start out with a
commitment to any and every wild claim and only release yourself
if a disproof should come along.

Belief has to be justified. When a belief can't be justified, then one
must reject the idea of believing despite that fact. Applied to God,
that is what atheism is: the refusal to commit one's consciousness to
a notion that has never, in thousands of years, found the slightest
rational support.

That's the point I wanted to make in this post. But here's a
psychological postscript. The person making the "no disproof
exists" argument clearly *wants* there to be a God and fears there
not being one. For what if he doesn't? What if he feels pleasure
and liberation in the sense that he is a free, independent, self-
responsible adult? And is positively inspired by the idea of a
morality based on his own life as an ultimate value? What if he
were horrified at the prospect of an omnipotent being of an
incomprehensible nature, who demands service and submission?

Is it conceivable that, in that motivational context, he'd fall for
"Though there's no reason to believe, belief is the default position--
'good until cancelled'?

For anyone who was wondering.

 

[preeny101]

What the what? How long before this thread gets locked?

 

[BadMoon]

Pretty sure God didn't get permission to use the Total Recall soundtrack. I smell a lawsuit.

 

[Voorhees27]

Since the world started turning there were believers and non believers. Until it ceases to exist the case will remain the same ................ Hot Toys is making a T1 Arnold

 

[Devil_666]

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for Kung-Fu treachery!

 

[Voorhees27]

 

[karamazov80]

Hot Toys is making a T1 Arnold

Proof there is a God.

 

[Devil_666]

 

[Voorhees27]

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for Kung-Fu treachery!

 

[RoboDad]

For anyone who was wondering.

Wondering what? Whether one of the basic tenets of atheism is a delusional perception of intellectual superiority? Not to worry, that's already been well established through the ages.

 

[Devil_666]

Wondering what? Whether one of the basic tenets of atheism is a delusional perception of intellectual superiority? Not to worry, that's already been well established through the ages.

One of the basic tenets of Theism is a delusional perception of spiritual superiority that's also been established through the ages as well.

 

[Bamboota]

That gif is awesome!

 

[devilof76]

Wondering what? Whether one of the basic tenets of atheism is a delusional perception of intellectual superiority? Not to worry, that's already been well established through the ages.

Wondering which position had an epistemological leg to stand on. As the posting stated, people attempt to equate the two, and this is the explanation of why they are not equal.

I have no issue at all with people who choose to believe in God. None. Nor do I believe that atheists are intellectually superior. Newton believed in God, and I'm no Newton. But, I am damned tired of hearing the claim that choosing not to believe is no more rational than choosing to believe. Atheism (and science, for that matter) is not a faith.

 

[Valfar]

WTF?? that link starts playing music from Total Recall.

 

[maskfreak]

My friend at work wants to know why I am friends with Devil_666. I said, he is a good guy, he helped me with a Photoshop kids project. He said I am now doomed.

 

[Agent0028]

Did anyone else think the background pic was cool? Was God firing a laser at Earth from his Space Station? That picture should be titled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God...with a Space Station Armed with Lasers."