«

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:00:30 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-11-17 13:03:21 -0800, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> said:
>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:201011171228098930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-11-17 09:15:59 -0800, tony cooper <>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:48:34 -0800, Savageduck
>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, the burden is on the believers to give proof of the existence of
>>>>> their god(s).
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense, Duck. There is no obligation to prove the basis of faith
>>>> just as there is no obligation to disprove the basis of faith. The
>>>> whole concept of faith is based on personal beliefs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not exactly. When those evangelizing, or professing the existence of a
>>> god, or gods to be worshiped, they should provide compelling evidence to
>>> make the sale.
>>>
>>> The atheist, however is not obliged to prove a negative. The atheist can
>>> merely state, "I am happy for you, and the bliss you experience from your
>>> religion, but I do not believe in your god, or anybody else's god."
>>> Just as the burden of proof lies with the proposer of a scientific paper,
>>> theory or Law, the burden of proof lies with the theist.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> One's religious belief either accepts or does not accept the concept
>>>> of God, or gods, but it is not an area where proof is required. You
>>>> can no more supply proof of non-existance than they can of existence.
>>>
>>> Exactly, it is following a faith based mythology, developed from primitive
>>> ignorance. As I have said, proof of a negative, in this case proving the
>>> non-existence of a proposed mythical power labeled "god" for which there
>>> is no substance. At least the Cargo Cultists had the "Flying Gods" to hang
>>> their hopes on. Judeo-Christian-Islamic followers have vague empty
>>> promises which cannot be substantiated.
>>>
>>> ...and I choose not to believe any of that mythology, entertaining as it
>>> might be.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To tie this in to a photography-themed newsgroup, there is no burden
>>>> on anyone to *prove* that a photograph is a good photograph. What is
>>>> good or bad in photography is purely personal interpretation and
>>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> The same goes for buying cars, cameras, lenses etc. Which brings us to
>>> hardware. We have all seen what many manufacturers, of whatever product
>>> have promised us, and how they have failed to live up to expectations.
>>> The car salesman who promises an unrealistic mileage figure, to which you,
>>> or I respond, "I don't believe you!" If that sales person responded,
>>> "prove that WunderKar doesn't get that mileage" I would probably walk out
>>> of the showroom content with my disbelief.
>>> The burden of proof lies with that sales person's assertion, not my
>>> disbelief in his/her claim.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>
>> You make the assertion that my faith is mythology based on primitive belief.
>> The burden of proof is on you. If you make the assertion that there is no
>> God, the burden of that proof is also on you.
>
>No. You are proposing the god. I have nothing to prove.

But you are proposing the absence of the god. That is equally
deserving of proof.

Not that I need for you to prove it, or expect you to prove it, but
you should be held to the same requirement as the person who proposes
the opposite of your proposition.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:57:11 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-11-17 14:13:03 -0800, Bruce <> said:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:48:34 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Again, the burden is on the believers to give proof of the existence of
>>> their god(s).
>>
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that atheists have nothing to prove?
>>
>> For example, Richard Dawkins has stated that he is "almost certain"
>> that no god(s) exist(s). That is nowhere near absolute proof.
>>
>> If you expect absolute proof from believers, then why isn't it equally
>> reasonable to expect absolute proof from atheists?
>>
>>
>
>I repeat, It is a matter of belief. I don't believe in god(s)
>regardless of whether they exist or not.

What's this? You are now allowing that they *could* exist?

>The proposition that god(s) exist lies with the faithful, theist,
>believers. and if things were left at that it would be just fine with
>me. However there is a large group of faithful believers who would use
>their faith to govern the lives of those who do not believe.

Just as there is a large group of non-believers who want to govern the
lives of all of us. The desire to control is not limited to the
religious.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:26:03 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>
>I am declaring non-belief in the god, it is not a proposal at all. No
>proof required.

Phrased that way, then the ultra-religious person need not prove
anything to you when he says he has a belief in a god.

He is not proposing that there is a god that requires proof of
existence, but - instead - saying only that *he* believes that there
is a god.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:01:16 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-11-17 20:47:10 -0800, tony cooper <> said:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 20:26:03 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am declaring non-belief in the god, it is not a proposal at all. No
>>> proof required.
>>
>> Phrased that way, then the ultra-religious person need not prove
>> anything to you when he says he has a belief in a god.
>>
>> He is not proposing that there is a god that requires proof of
>> existence, but - instead - saying only that *he* believes that there
>> is a god.
>
>True. There is nothing wrong with that position.
>
>As I said before when you slapped me with platitudes, "That is very
>nice, I am glad you are happy with your god and religion, but I choose
>not to believe in your god."
>
>It changes when he wants me to become a follower of his religion, or he
>wants to effect my life by influencing government with the oddities of
>his beliefs. Then anybody else, and I, would be justified in having
>this ultra-religious person prove his, and his religion's bona fides.

I assume, then, you're talking about a situation where the religious
person is making some effort to bring you into his church. I've had
that happen to me, but I can't imagine it being a situation where I'd
be demanding proof that God exists before I'd join.

A stock broker can't provide proof that the investment he recommends
will be profitable, but you invest. A real estate agent can't provide
proof that a home will appreciate, but you buy one. A car salesman
can't provide proof that the car he's selling will be dependable, but
you buy it. But you want proof about a mental commitment to a
religion?

You want proof about an intangible like religion, but go with your gut
on an tangible investment? Seems to me you'd just say you weren't
interested. Granted, some religious people can be persistent, but no
one is forcing you to listen to the whole spiel.

Demanding proof would just be argumentative. If you get to that
point, you are just prolonging the discussion because you *know* he
can't convince you and you *know* he will continue to believe his
religion is the true way to go. That's on you.

If you are the type to sincerely pursue the discussion to get him to
provide you with proof, then you must be unsure about your own
position and subconsciously seeking a reason to accept what he says.
It never gets that far with me.

I'm not offended when a religious person makes an attempt to bring me
into the fold. In many religions, that's in the rules...that's what
they are supposed to do. In most religions, the person genuinely
believes he's doing the right thing by trying to convert you. I can't
fault him for that even though I have no interest.








--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Nov 17, 3:35*pm, "G Paleologopoulos" <gpa...@ath.forthnet.gr>
wrote:
> "Whisky-dave" <whisky.d...@gmail.com> wrotenews:c5272585-10b5-4b97-bb82-...
>
> ..............snip a whole lot...................
>
> One of my old sigs from early newsnet days.
> "God's in the bottom of a bottle and I'm gonna find him"
>
> Hence your moniker of "Whiskey-dave" I presume???
>

Not quite, I don't have an 'e' in my whisky.

On Nov 17, 3:44*pm, Die Wahrheit <diewahrh...@somewherehonest.net>
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 06:59:45 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
>
> <whisky.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Paganism is closest to a religion or a God as I have come,
> >Yes the Sun does gives us virtually everything so why not pray to it.
> >Well for me it's because it doesn't have life and know of it's own
> >existence.
>
> "Pagan" just means non-christian. It used to even include muslims and jews,
> but they argued they were all worshipping the same imaginary god so they
> are referred to as Pagans to a lesser extent today.

yes an imaginary God, one that doesn't exist perhaps.

>
> Even atheists are considered "Pagan".

Mostly by Christians though.


>
> Pagan Definition - f/ OED v2: [ad. L. pagan-us, orig. 'villager, rustic;
> civilian, non-militant', opposed to m_les 'soldier, one of the army', in
> christian L. (Tertullian, Augustine) 'heathen' as opposed to christian or
> jewish. The christians called themselves m_lites 'enrolled soldiers' of
> christ, members of his militant church, and applied to non-christians the
> term applied by soldiers to all who were 'not enrolled in the army'.
>
> 1. One of a nation or community which does not hold to the non-nature-based
> (unnatural) christian religion, or does not worship a christian god; a
> heathen (i.e. 'dweller on the heath, where the heather grows'). In earlier
> use practically = non-christian, and so including muslims and, sometimes,
> jews.
>
> OED v3 has the definition completely rewritten to only say, "One who does
> not worship the ONE TRUE GOD." The true etymology, definition, and facts
> now censored and twisted by some ignorant and insecure christian editor or
> editors. Ever since v3 OED is now no longer a viable reference source for
> facts for any body of knowledge. Thanks to christian editors.
>
> If you didn't take up swords and help christian soldiers torture and murder
> your neighbors and relatives in order to turn them into christians or make
> human sacrifices of them to appease their beliefs in a christian god, you
> were considered Pagan. That's all that Pagan really means.

As defined by the Christians that wrote the dictionaries, you might as
well ask Sarah Palin
about Steven Hawkin's medical history

On Nov 17, 4:48*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-17 06:59:45 -0800, Whisky-dave <whisky.d...@gmail.com> said:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 2:01 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "J. Clarke" <jclarkeuse...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> In article <201011151035351669-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, savageduck1
> >>> @{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
>
> >>>> On 2010-11-15 10:12:39 -0800, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>>>> On Nov 15, 9:51 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrot
> > e:
>
> >>>>>> Agnosticism, isn't even atheism light, it is hedging bets,because t
> > he
> >>>>>> religious societal mores sit too securely in your cultural backgrou
> > nd,
> >>>>>> and personal choices. Just another version of fence sitting.
>
> >>>>> Sorry, but you're wrong.
>
> >>>>> While both true believers and athiests are positing an unprovable
> >>>>> thesis, the agnostic is simply being intellectually honest by saying
> >>>>> "I don't know the truth of the matter". (He probably suspects that
> >>>>> *you* don't know -and can't know- the truth of the matter either, bu
> > t
> >>>>> usually doesn't bother to point this out.)
>
> >>>>> To assume that agnostics are fence-sitting is to assume that there a
> > re
> >>>>> only two choices -to believe or to disbelieve- when in truth
> >>>>> agnosticisim is a perfectly valid third position which does not sit
> >>>>> *between* athiests and believers but sits at right angles to both.
>
> >>>> Not exactly. The atheist is stating, "I do not believe in the existenc
> > e
> >>>> of god(s)."
> >>>> The atheist does not bear the burden of proof, that remains with those
> >>>> who claim the existence of god(s). unadulterated faith does not cut it
> > .
>
> >>>> If the agnostic asks the atheist to prove god(s) do not exist. The
> >>>> atheist's response should be "I am not claiming the existents of these
> >>>> god(s) which only exist in the imaginations of the believers. Therefor
> > e
> >>>> it is for the believers to demonstrate a proof, not for me to prove a
> >>>> negative."
> >>>> If the same question is asked of a believer, consider the lack of
> >>>> substance in the response.
>
> >>>> The question which an agnostic should consider is, "How do you prove a
> >>>> negative?" So in reality the neutral position is that of the atheist,
> >>>> logically not believing in that negative, which has not, and is not
> >>>> likely to be proven.
>
> >>>> The agnostic remains a fence sitter, not even knowing what question to
> > *ask.
>
> >>> A pox on the house of all religioius fanatics, including you damned
> >>> imitation atheists.
>
> >> That's a little harsh.
>
> >> Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, including Savageduck. The only
> >> issue I have is that I don't think anyone (including Savageduck)
> >> should have any right to dictate whether others' beliefs, or the lack
> >> of them, are valid or not. Opinion is fine. Diktat is not.
>
> > I almost agree, but some religions or beliefs based on them can be
> > disproved.
> > Perhaps most can, but until I see that proof either way hopefully I
> > can ignore them.
>
> Again, the burden is on the believers to give proof of the existence of
> their god(s).

But this is only true if they wish me to believe in their God.
As yet no one has done that, but there are some that expect me to
believe
in the Schrödinger's cat senerio .

> >> Having rejected organised religion in my teens, I took an interest in
> >> atheism, most recently through listening to Richard Dawkins and
> >> reading a couple of his books.http://richarddawkins.net/http://en.wikiped
> > ia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
>
> >> I began to realise that, far from rejecting the imposition of a rigid
> >> belief system - something I can wholeheartedly agree with - Dawkins
> >> seeks to impose exactly that; his is merely a different belief system.
> >> So I decided that I cannot subscribe to atheism, however attractive
> >> some of its ideas might sound, for precisely the same reasons I cannot
> >> subscribe to any organised religion.
>
> > I've not really read up on the subject and the reason I say I'm not an
> > atheist is partly due to the way atheists tend to conduct themselves
> > i.e having superior intelect because they know there's no God.
>
> Knowing whether there is a god, or not is not the basis of atheism.
> Atheism is a non-belief in god(s).

I assumed that if you don't believe in them they can not exist which
is atheism.

Where as what I'm saying is that I'll believe in God once I see the
proof.


> I do not profess to know if there is/are god(s) or not. I choose not to
> believe in those gods that the shopping list of religions have
> proposed. That non-belief is a rational choice based on the lack of
> evidence demonstrating sound reasoning to support any religion and the
> god(s) worshiped.

For me religions and Gods are different.
I can believe in religion or rather the effect it has, but as yet
haven't seen the evidence
of any God that's depicted or represented in those religions.


> >> The idea that everyone must either commit to a faith or commit to
> >> atheism is patently ridiculous.
>
> > Paganism is closest to a religion or a God as I have come,
> > Yes the Sun does gives us virtually everything so why not pray to it.
> > Well for me it's because it doesn't have life and know of it's own
> > existence.
>
> > Now whether a God has to be all powerful for me to believe in it/him/
> > her I'm really not sure.
> > But for me calling myself agnostic rather than an atheist means if you
> > have the data and evidence to back it up I would believe in your[1]
> > God, but that doesn't make him mine.
>
> That is an atheistic (maybe atheistic light) stance.

Light or lite

> Belief of the
> existence of the god(s) has nothing to do with belief in the faith, or
> religion.

I agree.
I can't say there is no God, all I can say is that I've not seen
enough evidence to prove
that a particular God exists or existed.


> > One of my old sigs from early newsnet days.
> > "God's in the bottom of a bottle and I'm gonna find him"
>
> > [1] whoever I'm discussing it with.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

On Nov 17, 5:24*pm, peter <peter...@nospam.optonline.net> wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 12:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:48:34 -0800, Savageduck
> > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> *wrote:
>
> >> Again, the burden is on the believers to give proof of the existence of
> >> their god(s).
>
> > Nonsense, Duck. *There is no obligation to prove the basis of faith
> > just as there is no obligation to disprove the basis of faith. *The
> > whole concept of faith is based on personal beliefs.
>
> > One's religious belief either accepts or does not accept the concept
> > of God, or gods, but it is not an area where proof is required. *You
> > can no more supply proof of non-existance than they can of existence.
>
> > To tie this in to a photography-themed newsgroup, there is no burden
> > on anyone to *prove* that a photograph is a good photograph. *What is
> > good or bad in photography is purely personal interpretation and
> > opinion.
>
> If I have to be wrong, I'd rather be wrong in accepting the concept of a
> supreme being. It seems to me that the consequences of an atheist being
> wrong can be rather hellish. *
>
> --
> Peter

Yep, all those none believers are going to hell

On Nov 17, 8:27*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2010-11-17 09:24:19 -0800, peter <peter...@nospam.optonline.net> said:
>
>
>
> > On 11/17/2010 12:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:48:34 -0800, Savageduck
> >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> *wrote:
>
> >>> Again, the burden is on the believers to give proof of the existence of
> >>> their god(s).
>
> >> Nonsense, Duck. *There is no obligation to prove the basis of faith
> >> just as there is no obligation to disprove the basis of faith. *The
> >> whole concept of faith is based on personal beliefs.
>
> >> One's religious belief either accepts or does not accept the concept
> >> of God, or gods, but it is not an area where proof is required. *You
> >> can no more supply proof of non-existance than they can of existence.
>
> >> To tie this in to a photography-themed newsgroup, there is no burden
> >> on anyone to *prove* that a photograph is a good photograph. *What is
> >> good or bad in photography is purely personal interpretation and
> >> opinion.
>
> > If I have to be wrong, I'd rather be wrong in accepting the concept of
> > a supreme being. It seems to me that the consequences of an atheist
> > being wrong can be rather hellish. *
>
> ...but as an agnostic you would still be hedging your bet, not going
> one way or the other.

I'll go the way of the evidence or proof shown to me.

>
> Then consider the concept of Hell, a New Testament, Christian,
> fear-mongering tactic, designed to retain membership, certainly not
> Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or even Cargo Cultist.

There's a small chance that Captain Kirk went back in time to create
the universe and himself.
If he can't do that then who the hell can

"Phil B." <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:05:56 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
> <> wrote:
>
>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:43:15 -0800, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I choose not to believe in any god(s) and follow any religion.
>>>>...and certainly I understand that others, the majority have chosen to
>>>>follow a religion and the god(s) worshiped as part of those religions.
>>>>It is my opinion, and I detest fanatical evangelism of any kind. It is
>>>>a great presumption of those fundamentalists to force themselves on the
>>>>infidels.
>>>
>>> It is not fundamentalists that force their religion on infidels. If
>>> you are going to use "fundamentalists", you need to better understand
>>> the term. Christian missionaries are not necessarily fundamentalists,
>>> but they do actively attempt to impose their religious beliefs on
>>> those who do not practice the same form of religion.
>>
>>"Impose" or merely convince others to come the same conclusion that they
>>have that they need to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. There's a big
>>difference. I know a lot of missionaries, none of them impose anything on
>>anyone.
>
> You mean like the missionaries that brought heinous acacia thorns to
> Hawaii
> to force the natives to wear shoes and clothes? That kind of
> non-imposition? You mean like the missionaries that intentionally gave
> Black Plague infected clothing and bedding to Native North Americans
> because they wouldn't leave their lands? You mean like the jesuit priest
> missionaries that used to cut the breasts off of Native American women
> while they were still alive and play with them with sticks, like a game of
> baseball? That kind of non-imposition? There's a documented three
> continents of millions and millions of people who were made into human
> sacrifices to appease these missionaries' belief in their christian god,
> including Europe, very likely even including your own ancestors whose
> culture and heritage was destroyed by them. Over 500 Nations (tribes) of
> Native Americans that are now extinct (documented), and uncounted numbers
> of native cultures in South America as well.
>
> Yes, they never "impose" anything. Do they.
>
> ALL christians have paved their path of intentions to their hell, quite
> well, quite solidly, and quite irrevocably.

Do you know any missionaries who impose their belief on anyone? I made a
statement about missionaries I personally know - a lot of them - and you
make a statement about what might have happened hundreds of years ago.