Back to Windows...

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 17:28, Nikolai wrote:
> Senectus . wrote:
> > No offence intended, but it's my considered belief that if you don't
> > understand Atheism It's because you haven't thought about about it
> > deeply enough.
>
> I have thought about it as deep as I possibly could and I have rejected
> it. Atheism leads to skepticism and skepticism is irrational. I don't
> think I can embrace an irrational world view (once I know it's
> irrational of course).
>
Not sure I agree with that. What makes perfect sense to me, does not to other 
people,m and I woudl never claim to be the posessor of truth. Religion 
teaches us to be humble, and that si part of it in m opinion.
> > For me the concept of me believing in a "God" concept is inconceivable.
>
> Yet, you have no trouble believing in "Saddam Husein" or any other such
> concept.
>
It is impossible to convince soembody that there is a God. You either believe, 
or you don't. There is nothign rational in belief. It is an inherently 
illogical process. That does not, however, make it wrong, a mistake that I 
believe many atheists make.
> > I've tried, but I'm quite a logical person and the logic of belief for
> > the sake of belief seems like Lunacy to me.
>
> It is lunacy, yes, you're correct. If, however, you're a logical person
> (whatever that means), maybe you could briefly outline what sort of
> logical problems you're having with what you have called a concept of God?
>
I coudl outline some of that oens I have, as a believer. I am Jewish. I find 
it inconceivable that God allowed the Holocaust to occur, and yet he did. We 
are his chosen people (according to oru Torah) and yet he allowed one of the 
greatest crimes of history to be perpetrated on us. I do not believe that 
belief in a God is such a simple thing as to be easily demnonstrable (or at 
all).
> > It con not be proved, Documentation on the subject can not be properly
> > verified and many _many_ instances of those that profess to be the
> > most serious about it are the ones to commit the greatest atrocities
> > in the name of it.
>
> As far as proof is concerned, it all depends on what kind of proof
> you're after. Usually, if not always, people demand one kind of proof
> from those who defend Christianity all the while accepting different
> kinds of proofs from everybody else. For example, the accounts of
> Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rejected as fantasy all the while
> similar accounts, and much less attested for, can be easily accepted in
> a court of law as long as there are no miracles in them. But question
> is, on what basis the miracles are rejected as impossible while the
> possibility of miracles is precisely what is at stake? Can you see a
> problem here?
>
There is a problem with the evidence proided in the gospels. Whiel it is 
evidence:
a) it is secondary (they were all written well after jesus' death)
b) There is absolutely no corroborating evidence.

Please note, I am not saying that they are wrong, merely that their veracity, 
like that of almost any religious text, cannot be verified.
> I'm not sure what you're referring to by "atrocities".
>
crusades, forced conversions, spanish inquisition, 9/11, the middle east 
conflict, pogroms, religiosu wars between Catholics and Protestants, the list 
is almost endless.
> > In my view the hypocrisy of nearly all religions is staggering.
>
> You of course are prepared to substantiate this?
>
here I must agree, whie many religious people are hypocritical (for example 
preaching tolerance of other faiths and then acting to restrict their 
practice, a good example is the far religiosu right in israel which tries to 
prevent the sale of pork in the country), I would find it hard to 
substantiate that the religion itself is guilty of hypocrisy.
> > Your understanding and knowledge of "faith" is not absolute, nothing
> > is absolute.
>
> Is this claim absolute?
>
lol
> > You can't deny FN's opinion as absolutely wrong because you Cannot
> > verify yours as absolutely right, and the same in return :-)
>
> I think I can. FN made a fool of himself by claiming a) there's no truth
> to be known and b) that God is dead. In the former claim, he shows us
> that he is not to be taken seriously and in the latter, he shows how
> little he knew of what he so feebly attempted to critique. This is
> enough to conclude that his was a wrong opinion.
>
Wel,, in fairness, his claim that "God is dead" was meant tnot to show that 
the Chrisitian God no longer lives (an impossibility if you believe that he 
ever lived as is implied in the statement that he is dead) but rather that 
religion has no place int he modern world. Perhaps it shoudl be read 
as "Religion is dead." I disagree with this perception, however, it is not in 
itself demonstrably wrong if viewed with that interpretation.

Sasha