david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (03/26/84)
[*] Thomas Ruschak: > I think that in any discussions of this sort, the burden of proof > must be on the Theists. Non-Thiests simply say that they do not think that > god exists because they have no evidence that cannot easily be otherwise > explained. If Theists wish us to believe that there is a god, they must give > us some proof of this proposition. Only if the Theists are trying to produce some evidence for Theism. I have explained that Atheism is as much a leap of faith as is Theism. The inability to produce evidence for Theism is no proof for Atheism. On the face of absolutely no evidence, the best you can be is an Agnostic (maybe He is, and maybe He isn't). The burden of proof is on both the Theist AND the Atheist, or at least should be, from the Agnostic's point of view. A: Prove that there is life in other galaxies. T: I can't. A: Aha! Therefore, there is no life on other planets! I have been waiting for the Atheists to present their case, and it would appear that no one will champion the cause, other than requests for Theists to prove Theism (which, as I've said, is no proof for Atheism) :-( But let's give the Atheists a few more days before asking the Theists to present their case. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
kechkayl@ecn-ee.UUCP (03/27/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-1600:ecn-ee:18600009:000:688 ecn-ee!kechkayl Mar 27 01:08:00 1984 [may the line-eater be with me] -> >The burden of proof is on both the Theist AND the Atheist, Well, sorry to argue semantics, but I said *Non-Theist*. I don't believe in a god, and I don't believe there isn't a god. I am no authority on religious matters, therefore I don't feel qualified to tell others the status of God. I simply don't feel that it is relevant to me. If you can convince me one way or another (providing you care :> ) I might change my ways. Sorry if I step on any toes. You can believe anything you want, but don't try to convince me unless you can produce sufficient evidence (NOT "faith"); Thomas Ruschak pur-ee!kechkayl "Aiee! A toy robot!"
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (03/28/84)
#R:ssc-vax:-1600:fortune:21900016:000:769
fortune!rpw3 Mar 28 02:19:00 1984
Tom Ruschak uses the term non-theist as if it were the same as atheist.
It isn't. From the point of view of an actual non-theistic perspective,
such as Buddhism, atheism is a form of theism, as David Norris implies,
since it makes as assertion that "there is no X". While the agnostic is
not convinced whether to believe the theist or the atheist, the non-theist
simply says that the entire issue of an external "thing" misses the point.
Because everything is impermanent, all of that energy expended in grasping
towards (or away from) some presumed permanent reference just creates more
suffering.
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065chrism@shark.UUCP (03/29/84)
>....Atheism is as much a leap of faith as is Theism. The inability >to produce evidence for Theism is no proof for Atheism. On the face of >absolutely no evidence, the best you can be is an Agnostic (maybe He is, and >maybe He isn't). The burden of proof is on both the Theist AND the Atheist, >or at least should be, from the Agnostic's point of view. > Divine Statement: "Somewhere betweem the orbit of Mars and Jupiter floats a jelly-filled donut with apricot frosting (yech!)." I presume three responses to this assertion: 1: You're crazy, there is absolutely no evidence for that donut existing out there in the asteroid belt. I don't believe it. (Atheist). 2: Well, it can't be proved one way or another, so I guess I'm just undecided. (Agnostic). 3: I believe you're right, yes, that jelly-filled donut really is spinning away out there in the cosmos. (Believer). #3 (the believer) actively agrees with the assertion. #1 actively disagrees, but offers no similar assertion in its place (e.g. there may not be a donut out there, but Ill bet you there is a Hostess twinkie). That is, he is not making or postulating anything - he is just disagreeing. This, it seems to me, does not require a great "leap of faith". Further, the burden of proof should always lie with the individual making the postive assertion, rather than the one who does not make that assertion in the first place. Thus, in science, the burden of proof lies with those advancing the hypothesis, as opposed to those criticising the hypothesis. Personally, I think I agree most with Buddha's observation on this question. Also, I don't label myself an atheist, and in fact, wonder if labels of this type have any meaning anyway. But, I thought this donut analogy might provoke some interesting and hopefully more tasteful commentary.(:-). Chris Minson