Subject: Re: no evidence of God. In article <16407@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu writes

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: jmunro@wyse.wyse.com (Jim Munro) Subject: Re: no evidence of God. Reply-To: jmunro@wyse.UUCP (Jim Munro) In article <16407@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu writes: >Several people responded to my article, in essentially the same vein. For >reasons of my own I choose to respond to Dene Bebbington; if the others feel >I have neglected specific points of theirs, they are welcome to re-assert >them. > >>What reason is there for the world not being how I see it - ie. with no God? >>....etc..... > ............... >You seem to have arranged things so that no evidence wil convince. I rather >get the impression that your atheism is essentially the result of your >holding yourself to be the highest thing in the universe. This rather >guarantees that any God who doesn't meet your approval, who invalidates your >assessment of things, is going to be declared non-existent. But a real God >is guaranteed to do just that. > >In the first place, if God says that it is not your prerogative, then it is >not. >It seems to me that it isn't merely that you don't hear >GOd; it seems to me that you *won't* hear God. > >SINCE you would hate to believe so, your decision is obviously not one of >chance. It is one which is convenient to what you obviously hold dear: your >own sense of wisdom. Plenty of people have looked to this same God and seen >past what you see as inconsistent and rediculous, and frankly, I think their >reasoning makes a lot more sense than your position does. Indeed, to me you >come across as a bit of a buffoon yourself; you obviously are not in a >position to make the judgements you so blythely make. > I'm afraid you are making the same kind of arguments that Joe Applegate often makes. Dene Bebbington asks for evidence, you accuse him of not looking and not hearing. Seems that if you have faith and want to believe, then you will see the evidence all around? Do I have it right?. If one does not have faith and demands some tangible proof of God's existence, then one is branded as arrogant (setting oneself above God). These are not arguments!, these are just thinly disguised attempts to accuse us of blasphemy and heresy!. This is the age old tactic of telling non- believers to reform or pay the price! The real reason people believe is quite simply because they are 'imprinted' at an early age. Children beleive anything they are told, especially when told by authority figures. Only with age does one develop critical skills necessary to judge for ourselves what is true and what is not. In most other areas we are encouraged to be curious and critical, but when it comes to religion, we are encouraged to 'not ask questions', and particularly 'not to question God'. Why else are atheists and heretics viewed with such fear? It's because the whole edifice could come tumbling down if too many people asked too many questions! So is it not reasonable to ask for one grain of evidence? I am not asking God to appear, merely asking for one small piece of evidence which is not based on assuming the Bible to be the word of God or other such tautologies. Or is this too much? Is this just setting myself above God by making demands? i.e: Latter day heretic? Jim Munro

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank