Response to Eric (GoodK)

[_richardMdBorn]

Here's a response to GoodK's post "I'm not an agnostic". [CORRECTED per GoodK's following post]
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7696
To avoid distractions, I would prefer to have a one on one discussion with him.

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I don't think there is no god. I know there is no god. I know there is no god the same way I know a lot of other laws in our universe.

I took two years of college physics. What is this law that requires atheism. Is it derived from Newton’s three laws or Maxwell’s equations?

I know there is no god. I know that most of the world knows that as well, they just won't admit because they also know something else. They will die. It freaks them out.

How do you know that religious people know that there is no god? Do you know this from talking to a lot of non-LDS people or have you learned it from reading people such as Freud, Hitchens and Russell. Have you learned it through rigorous arguments. If so, have you ever made a mistake. How do you know that you are infallible here? Or are you angry at certain religious people and are reacting to them and generalizing. How many books by religious advocates have you read in the last year? Is the proper way of arriving at truth to only read people that agree and reinforce your current thoughts? In researching the history of GPS I read a lot of articles by people whose perspectives I strongly disagree with and have quoted them in my two published articles. Have you done this?

So, most people don't have the courage to admit there is no god and that they know it. They feel it -- they try and suppress it, and if you bring it up they get upset.

How do we know that you are not suppressing your belief in god because you like to think that you’re responsible to no one. Two can play the psychological repression game. According to Satre, freedom requires that there be no god. What kind of proof is that?

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) Let's keep this thread as a dialog between Richard and Eric. Richard, what I would suggest is creating a second thread to allow those who wish to comment on the debate between you two to place their comments in that thread. Liz

[_richardMdBorn]

(Moderator Note) Let's keep this thread as a dialog between Richard and Eric. Richard, what I would suggest is creating a second thread to allow those who wish to comment on the debate between you two to place their comments in that thread. Liz

Hi Liz,

I meant to suggest a separate thread but forgot to include it in my post. Thanks for suggesting it. I don't want to limit discussion but rather want to avoid having it hijacked as sometimes occurs on this MB.

[_GoodK]

Here's a response to GoodK's post "I'm not an atheist".
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... f=1&t=7696

Technically the post was called I'm not agnostic, but who's counting? :)

]I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I don't think there is no god. I know there is no god. I know there is no god the same way I know a lot of other laws in our universe.

I took two years of college physics. What is this law that requires atheism. Is it derived from Newton’s three laws or Maxwell’s equations?

No, of course not. Thanks for mentioning Maxwell's equations - that just made for about an hour of pretty interesting reading.

Atheism does not need to explain the origin of the cosmos just because religion tries to. One does not need to be thoroughly versed in physics or science to be an atheist. Many scientists are atheists, and many atheists seem to take an extraordinary interest in science, but they are not connected to each other.

Let me put it this way - let's say I grew up in some Tanzanian cave with a group of non-verbal nomads. I never heard the word "God" or any similar phrase. I never thought about heaven, or whether or not I should be baptized in the name of anyone in particular, or ever had any concept of a "intelligent designer." I had no reason to believe any sort of big brother in the sky was watching me, or took interest in my daily activities. Would I be an atheist?

Just because I've heard - to put it bluntly - the rather ridiculous claims of virgin impregnation, resurrection, and magic rocks and I still reject them does not mean that I need to "defend a negative assertion as if it were an affirmative." Or somehow prove how light comes into existence.

I know there is no god. I know that most of the world knows that as well, they just won't admit because they also know something else. They will die. It freaks them out.

How do you know that religious people know that there is no god? Do you know this from talking to a lot of non-LDS people or have you learned it from reading people such as Freud, Hitchens and Russell.

I considered posting a video response to one of Kerry Shirts' YouTube thingies - and I dug up an old email from a friend who just got back from his mission. In response to my suggesting he read Brodie - he said, and I quote, "Don't let some well intentioned atheist ruin your belief in God."
Well, if that doesn't say it all - every rigorous argument I have had with believers have ended in their saying something measly and inefficient like, and I quote, "Have you prayed about atheism" or "If you experienced what I experienced you would be a believer, too."
I just can't tolerate things like that as reasons to believe in God. I take that to mean, of course I can't support a belief in God with anything resembling a reasonable argument or evidence, just believe in it already. It sounds like, I just have to believe this stuff. I just have to.

How do we know that you are not suppressing your belief in god because you like to think that you’re responsible to no one.

I don't know why I hear this so much, as if atheism is just a free for all and is for people looking for all hell to break loose. Being accountable to an eternal tyrant has nothing to do with anyone's atheism.

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi GoodK,

I don't see compelling support in your post for your assertion

I know there is no god the same way I know a lot of other laws in our universe.

What are the other laws which are comparable to your law or assertion that there is no god. We know that you don't believe in miracles.

Let me put it this way - let's say I grew up in some Tanzanian cave with a group of non-verbal nomads. I never heard the word "God" or any similar phrase. I never thought about heaven, or whether or not I should be baptized in the name of anyone in particular, or ever had any concept of a "intelligent designer." I had no reason to believe any sort of big brother in the sky was watching me, or took interest in my daily activities. Would I be an atheist?

I don’t think either one of us wants to fall into the fallacy of believing that something is true or false depending on how many people believe in it. But religion does seem pretty universal.

I don’t think you adequately supported your post

I know there is no god. I know that most of the world knows that as well, they just won't admit because they also know something else. They will die. It freaks them out.

Arguing that the religious don’t make strictly objective arguments for the existence of God is NOT equivalent to the assertion that most people know that God does not exist.

I don't know why I hear this so much, as if atheism is just a free for all and is for people looking for all hell to break loose. Being accountable to an eternal tyrant has nothing to do with anyone's atheism.

Well, something broke loose in the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao. Clearly, some atheists do very bad things (as do some theists).

[_GoodK]

Hi GoodK,

Arguing that the religious don’t make strictly objective arguments for the existence of God is NOT equivalent to the assertion that most people know that God does not exist.

Hi Richard,

Well let me put it this way - the way Bill Maher put it at the end of his movie. I know you don't know that God exists because I don't know that God exists, and your brain does not have special powers that mine does not have. It is impossible for you to know that God exists.

Well, something broke loose in the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao. Clearly, some atheists do very bad things (as do some theists).

And religious leaders restored order?

But seriously, this old canard has been put to sleep millions of times.
The answer to religious dogma is not totalitarian dogma. Too much skeptical inquiry was not the cause of the gulags. The problem with Stalin's Soviet Union and communist China was they acted too much like religion, not "atheism."

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) Marg added some great commentary. I have added it to the following thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7801

We will keep this thread open for Richard and GoodK to continue their one on one debate per thread starter's request.

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi Eric,

Sorry it's taken me a couple of days to respond. I've been posting on a couple of political thread on MD which is the ultimate waste of time. :) There's much sound and fury with probable result that nobody's mind is changed.

Hi GoodK,

Arguing that the religious don’t make strictly objective arguments for the existence of God is NOT equivalent to the assertion that most people know that God does not exist.

Hi Richard,

Well let me put it this way - the way Bill Maher put it at the end of his movie. I know you don't know that God exists because I don't know that God exists, and your brain does not have special powers that mine does not have. It is impossible for you to know that God exists.

But your initial statement was much stronger. You knew that God did not exist in the same way you knew the physical laws of the universe. I think we need to explore this further. What's your evidence for this? Is it the result of experiments, logical argument or something else?

And you also asserted that most religious people know that God does not exist. What's your evidence for this? Do you think that I know that God does not exist?

Well, something broke loose in the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao. Clearly, some atheists do very bad things (as do some theists).

And religious leaders restored order?

But seriously, this old canard has been put to sleep millions of times.
The answer to religious dogma is not totalitarian dogma. Too much skeptical inquiry was not the cause of the gulags. The problem with Stalin's Soviet Union and communist China was they acted too much like religion, not "atheism."

Marxism is one manifestation of atheism. Do you agree with some militant atheists today that religion tends to mess up everything? Do you think that it tends to make people worse? Do you think that it has made me a worse person (feel free to not answer this question since the response that you can't know much from interacting on the internet is a reasonable one).

[_GoodK]

Richard my computer crashed so I can't really reply in detail because I'm using my phone right now. I'll hit the library tomorrow and respond.

[_richardMdBorn]

Richard my computer crashed so I can't really reply in detail because I'm using my phone right now. I'll hit the library tomorrow and respond.

Hi Eric,

Take as much time as you need. In two weeks or so I'm going to take a considerable amount of time off from this MB.