Do right-wingers want to make us more stupid?
Thu, 2006-04-13 23:53
#1
Do right-wingers want to make us more stupid?
Thu, 2006-04-13 23:53
#2
quote:
There's a joke dating from the early part of the Mike Harris era that goes something like this: “Harris is starving the education system so that people will be dumb enough to vote for him again.” I chuckled a bit when I first heard the joke but, ultimately, I thought that it was just another throwaway putdown.In retrospect, I'm wondering if the comic (whose name escapes) might have been on to something.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=48927]Scott Piatkowski[/url]
Wed, 2006-04-19 02:04
#3
I don't doubt it. I've said it once and I'll say it again - right-wing logic is more circular than a perfect sphere.
Wed, 2006-04-19 09:23
#4
No Yards
Probably not. Right wingers in general are a result of the education system being described, passed down from right wing generation to right wing generation (brain damage or tainted tuna accounting for the occasional right winger born to left wing parents.) So obviously, being trained under a Harris type "education", they are really incapable of formulating such a highly developed plan. If it were a real "right wing" plan it would go something like "us shoot bad commie people with squirrelly rifle".
The actual plan with which the right wing education system was set up, was developed by Straussian neo-cons, in order to develop a pipeline of right wingers from which to build their power.
Wed, 2006-04-19 10:32
#5
A right winger is someone stuck on the past. A dead-ender, and proud of it. They are burdened with a simmering anger, because they see defeat by reason on the horizon. Atavism over logic, force over consensus; that's their starting block.
Right wingers celebrate lies without reservation. Of course they would like to turn us; but at bottom they're happy to oppress.
Wed, 2006-04-19 10:56
#6
That's foolish. Most right wingers are hard working people from mechanics to forestry workers to farmers to truck drivers. They aren't ignorant victims of an education system anymore than progressives are. They have a value system based on what they experience in life and what they believe works in society. They aren't any more mean spirited than anyone else.
If progressives believe there is a better way for society to function then that takes convincing. In fact the convincing has been quite successful from public education to health infrastructures to senior pensions,social assistance programmes and so on.
Wed, 2006-04-19 11:17
#7
No Yards
quote:
Originally posted by Sanityatlast:
[b]They aren't ignorant victims of an education system anymore than progressives are. [/b]
How many progressives believe that the world is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?
Wed, 2006-04-19 11:41
#8
Hmmm. Elitist,superior leftists who have all the answers,blocked from saving the universe by those stupid dead-ender right-wing bozos who,by some trick of fate continually keep the reins of power.
Most of the people erroneously labelled as stupid right wingers are merely hardworking people too overwhelmed by their ongoing life struggles to find the time for debating idealistic solutions to problems that do not affect them directly.
This sneering condescension of a large part of Canadian society goes a long ways in explaining why leftists are not taken seriously-why they are always( to their amazement)on the outside looking in.
From international affairs to community living,alternative energy to benefits reform,leftists have excellent ideas but prefer to confront anyone who does not understand or agree as a stupid right winger rather than persuading them to be supportive.
Right wingers do not want you to be more stupid,they want you to continue exactly as you are doing now.Obsessing about Steven Harper's beer belly while they consolidate power in the PMO and make an end run around you. Stupid is as stupid does.
Wed, 2006-04-19 11:42
#9
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
[b]How many progressives believe that the world is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?[/b]
How many 'progressives' believe Jesus was a god and rose from the dead? Millions. How does one mythology show less ignorance than another. Many natives believe in a spirit world...spirits in the rocks, trees and so on. This is 'less progressive' than believing Jesus brought Lazarus back to life?
As an atheist I get a kick out of the hypocrisy of one set of religious beliefs being superior over another.
Wed, 2006-04-19 12:21
#10
Jester, you don't know our motives, or end game. I for one neither need nor want right-wingers in my life; it's they who inflict their beastly company on us. I stipulate that I don't know how to keep them at bay, given that they can always get my attention with sufficient violence and fear-mongering. That's the only reason I post here.
Wed, 2006-04-19 12:26
#11
No Yards
There is a big difference between recognizing that science doesn't explain everything and in those cases one must either choose to not ask questions or rely on religion for "answers"; and relying on religion for answers even in the face of all common sense, logic, and science.
I prefer to be agnostic ... Atheists are equally "dogmatic" in their belief that the question of God can be answered.
Wed, 2006-04-19 12:45
#12
quote:
Originally posted by nister:
[b]Jester, you don't know our motives, or end game. I for one neither need nor want right-wingers in my life; it's they who inflict their beastly company on us. I stipulate that I don't know how to keep them at bay, given that they can always get my attention with sufficient violence and fear-mongering. That's the only reason I post here.[/b]
You're right,I don't.
I spose if you find babble a refuge from beastly right wingers,this thread makes some sense.I never thought of it that way.
Although I am most likely considered a beastly right winger by some here,I have spent most of my life strugging against them as have most of the other little people denigrated here as stupid right wingers.
I'm a fighter,not a seeker of refuge.In the struggle of life,I usually get the crap kicked out of me and I have chosen to respond with irreverent good humour.
You are right,there are beastly right wingers out there. They prey on unbeastly right wingers,leftists and each other with equal abandon.Your mistake is in assuming everyone who is not in complete agreement with leftist ideals is automatically a beastly right winger.
Nister,your post is very enlightening.I'm not your enemy.I am a hard ass.Blunt,sometimes not as sensitive as I should be but battling beastly right wingers will do that to you.
Wed, 2006-04-19 13:00
#13
No Yards
But speaking strictly to the subject of the thread, Harris, education, and making us stupid, when it was found, through an actual voice or video taping of the then Harris tory minister of education telling his followers that they needed to create a crisis in education so they could come in and implement the changes they wanted to make, one can be forgiven for believing that right wing leaders are indeed involved in a plan to make everyone stupider, and easier to manipulate.
I mean, when they are caught in the middle of articulating and implementing their plan that specifically states the need to deceive the people in order to destroy their education system, what's wrong with saying that they are out to destroy education?
Wed, 2006-04-19 13:20
#14
I know you're not my enemy, Jester. I'm jabbing at trogs here because that's the thread. I'm not even all that "left", in classical terms. Rabble has turned me leftish on many issues, and caused me to make conclusions about classic right-wing positions and those who hold them. I try to "live and let live"..and expect the same. I have but one rule to apply to any issue that arises; one need not have the right reasons for doing the right thing. This makes for some interesting verbal "pitch and catch".
Wed, 2006-04-19 13:28
#15
Naci_Sey
quote:
Originally posted by Sanityatlast: Most right wingers are hard working people from mechanics to forestry workers to farmers to truck drivers. They aren't ignorant victims of an education system anymore than progressives are. They have a value system based on what they experience in life and what they believe works in society. They aren't any more mean spirited than anyone else.If progressives believe there is a better way for society to function then that takes convincing. In fact the convincing has been quite successful from public education to health infrastructures to senior pensions,social assistance programmes and so on...
(In response to No Yards, who wrote: How many progressives believe that the world is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?) How many 'progressives' believe Jesus was a god and rose from the dead...? Many natives believe in a spirit world ... spirits in the rocks, trees and so on. This is 'less progressive' than believing Jesus brought Lazarus back to life?
I'm with Sanity on both responses. If you visit FD, you'll find many posters there lumping all left-wingers together and ridiculing, scorning, and tossing them off as having nothing worthwhile to contribute, no position or value that might have validity. Are we any better if we do the same to right-wingers?
I'd really like to see we so-called progressives stop the "I'm better than you are" foolishness.
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:01
#16
I'd like to sees you, a so-called progressive, stop from lumping all progressives together.
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:03
#17
Naci Sey, FDer's call us limp-wristed traitors. They make specific threats. I know whereof I speak because I used to post there.
Before Bush's re-election, I made a small effort to push America's position on landmines to the fore..hey, you never know. I was naive enough to think there might be a weapon system they wouldn't like. Boy, did they set me straight.
FDer's love landmines, or are too craven to speak up. 10,000 tragedies a year is a small price to pay, they say. Freedom has a price, they say. Only foreigners die, they say.
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:04
#18
Naci_Sey
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull: I'd like to sees you, a so-called progressive, stop from lumping all progressives together.
You're right. I've got to watch it too.
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:17
#19
quote:
Originally posted by nister:
[b]Naci Sey, FDer's call us limp-wristed traitors. They make specific threats. I know whereof I speak because I used to post there.Before Bush's re-election, I made a small effort to push America's position on landmines to the fore..hey, you never know. I was naive enough to think there might be a weapon system they wouldn't like. Boy, did they set me straight.
FDer's love landmines, or are too craven to speak up. 10,000 tragedies a year is a small price to pay, they say. Freedom has a price, they say. Only foreigners die, they say.[/b]
How many right wing voters in Canada subscribe to FD? A hundreth of 1%? My parents vote some form of Conservative Party for 60 years and are the least ignorant, mean-spirited people I know. Mind you, they wouldn't vote again for King Ralph if he was running provincially again..but good god, they'd vote for some party to the right of the PCs. The only silver lining is like a lot of Alberta farmers they would vote for Karl Marx himself before they'd vote Liberal. We can discuss the NDP around the dinner table (they like Tommy Douglas) but bring up Trudeau and the NEP and dad will get out his unregistered rifle and plug you.
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:26
#20
writer
How did this become a discussion of another board? A tradition evolved here of not bashing - or even referring to - that particular site. It's a good tradition. Please respect it.
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:28
#21
Naci_Sey
quote:
Originally posted by nister: Naci Sey, FDer's call us limp-wristed traitors. They make specific threats.
Certain FDers (and some right-wingers) do that, yes. The ones who don't speak out against such actions are a big part of the problem, because then it's assumed that everyone thinks as the posters do.
quote:
No yards: Atheists are equally "dogmatic" in their belief that the question of God can be answered.
Actually, no. This atheist, at least, holds that there is no god. If rational argument proves otherwise, then I'll believe. On the other side, it's an impossibility to prove a negation, that something does not exist.
ETA: Sorry! No more of the other site.
[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Naci_Sey ]
Wed, 2006-04-19 14:35
#22
writer
Many thanks, Naci_Sey.
Wed, 2006-04-19 15:50
#23
quote:
Actually, no. This atheist, at least, holds that there is no god. If rational argument proves otherwise, then I'll believe. On the other side, it's an impossibility to prove a negation, that something does not exist.
Actually, again, no.
There are two forms of atheism. There is strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheists actively seek out to disprove that God or any other diety does not exist. As such they are just as dogmatic as any other religious person. Weak Atheists tacitly believe that God does not exist, but aren't willing to go out of their way to prove it - much the same way most Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Wiccans or anything you can think of that is theistic will.
Wed, 2006-04-19 15:56
#24
I take your point about FDer's footprint. Rabble mirrors them in that respect.
That said, I found not an inch of respect for Canada's, and the majority of countries, position on landmines. That's indefensible.
Wed, 2006-04-19 16:01
#25
writer
Again, there's really no need to keep talking about the other site. The last thing we need right now is another board war. Many thanks.
Wed, 2006-04-19 16:14
#26
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
[b]The last thing we need right now is another board war. [/b]
But now it could be two on one. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2006-04-19 16:15
#27
writer
Don't be dirty!
Wed, 2006-04-19 16:21
#28
Naci_Sey
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
[b]Actually, again, no.
There are two forms of atheism. There is strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheists actively seek out to disprove that God or any other diety does not exist.[/b]
In my response to No Yards' assertion that atheists are dogmatic, I wrote "[i]this atheist[/i], at least, holds that there is no god. If rational argument proves otherwise, then I'll believe." I was proving an exception, not talking about all atheists.
Strong atheism is untenable, if it relies on reason and not belief. As I said before, a negation, such as 'there is no god', cannot be proven; the argument must go on into infinity.
[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Naci_Sey ]
Wed, 2006-04-19 18:46
#29
No Yards
And wrong again.
The definition of Atheism is just plain dogmatic either way; weak or strong ... the Strong Atheist has a dogmatic belief that God does not exist ... the weak Atheist is someone who is just sceptical that God exists, but supposedly if someone brought forward proof, then they could be persuaded to change their minds ... so in other words, the strong Atheist takes something that is impossible to prove or disprove and insists that it has been disproved; and the weak Atheist takes the same impossible to prove or disprove situation and defaults to believing it has been disproved, but is open to listening to someone who claims it is provable.
Both pretty unreasonable positions to take and still call yourself logical.
Wed, 2006-04-19 19:20
#30
I believe myself to be an athiest. I wouldn't know if I were strong or weak.
quote:
... the weak Atheist is someone who is just sceptical that God exists, but supposedly if someone brought forward proof, then they could be persuaded to change their minds ..
Now to me No Yards, you're describing an agnostic.
I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who opined that at it's highest form, technology would be indistinguishable from magic.
So show me a supreme being which is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, who moreover created the universe, and I'll show you nothing more than an alien life form which has advanced to an absolute state.
I can hypothetically accept that, though I really see no reason to believe such a thing exists. Ain't no God though. I see god as being by definition a magical being outside of, and overseeing to some extent, reality.
Wed, 2006-04-19 19:38
#31
The onus isn't on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, Santa Claus, Leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. The onus is on the believer to provide irrefutable proof of God (or Leprechauns, etc.).
I don't see evidence of any mythical beings. I'm an atheist.
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:05
#32
Well said.
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:07
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Sanityatlast:
[b]The onus isn't on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, Santa Claus, Leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. The onus is on the believer to provide irrefutable proof of God (or Leprechauns, etc.).I don't see evidence of any mythical beings. I'm an atheist.[/b]
So, yeah.
The onus IS on whomever is being the moron and decidedly attacking the others belief - be they moronic religious person or iritating self-righteous atheist. Your logic is faultier than a car made out of old tank parts.
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:15
#34
P_B, my feeling is that onusses, (I'll leave Latin scholars such as yourself to deal with that word) only come into it when one person is trying to by force or argument change the belief system of another. That's why I don't like religious proselytising. I don't think you do either. Without the proselytising, everyone is free to follow their own path and there is no onus on anyone for anything.
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:18
#35
No Yards
Both are beliefs without proof, and logically unprovable (actually, strictly in a logical sense, there is "stronger" proof that God exists than it doesn't ... that's stronger, not necessarily adequate.)
You can wrap them up in strong language pretending that your unprovable beliefs are some kind of truth, or you can admit that they are simply beliefs and accept all that goes with believing in things that can't be proved.
There's nothing inherently wrong with beliefs, unless of course you forget that they are beliefs and start considering them truths that others should accept as such.
[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:19
#36
Naci_Sey
quote:
Originally posted by Sanityatlast:
[b]The onus isn't on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, Santa Claus, Leprechauns or the Easter Bunny. The onus is on the believer to provide irrefutable proof of God (or Leprechauns, etc.).I don't see evidence of any mythical beings. I'm an atheist.[/b]
Ohhh, I wish I'd said that. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:27
#37
Exactly. If someone is sitting there and going "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" or "THE PATH TO SALVATION IS THROUGH APPLIANTOLOGY" I expect them to give me a good explanation either way. If I'm in a regular old debate with someone and they say God does or does not exist I'll talk to them about it and argue. However, I don't like to get into those chaffing conversations (I swear, religious debates are like a REALLY bad rash).
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:36
#38
I haven't posted in a while. Did I miss anything?
On to the topic:
Come on agnostics, git off the fence!
If you allow for the possiblity of the existence of a supreme being, then no claim can be too outrageous to discount. Dragons? Sure, can't say they ain't out there somewhere. Bigfoot? What the hell, why not. Loch Ness Monster? Give 'er. Virgin birth followed by Zombi-like return from the dead? Okeydokey. UFO abductions and anal probing? Who am I to call it looney?
What happens to peoples' bullshite detectors when religion is involved? Why are they given the kind of benefit of the doubt which Raelians and Mormons can only dream of getting?
[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Jingles ]
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:54
#39
Naci_Sey
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
[b]I haven't posted in a while...Come on agnostics, git off the fence!
If you allow for the possiblity of the existence of a supreme being, then no claim can be too outrageous to discount. Dragons? Sure, can't say they ain't out there somewhere. Bigfoot? What the hell, why not. Loch Ness Monster? Give 'er. Virgin birth followed by Zombi-like return from the dead? Okeydokey. UFO abductions and anal probing? Who am I to call it looney?
What happens to peoples' bullshite detectors when religion is involved? Why are they given the kind of benefit of the doubt which Raelians and Mormons can only dream of getting?[/b]
Hi Jingles. As an atheist, I understand your frustration, but for me it's not about giving the benefit of the doubt, but about being cautious. I've seen people's beliefs challenged relentlessly. To my mind, the distress that that has caused isn't worth the slim possibility of 'conversion'.
Wed, 2006-04-19 20:58
#40
I agree with this. As someone who was an atheist, then a believer, and now just about at the point of atheism again, I would say that people kind of have to go at their own pace when it comes to metaphysical or religious beliefs. Berating people into atheism OR belief just doesn't work. You have to come to that conclusion yourself, in your own mind and heart and through your own personal experiences.
Wed, 2006-04-19 21:05
#41
quote:
I haven't posted in a while. Did I miss anything?
No
Wed, 2006-04-19 21:07
#42
No Yards
Agnostics aren't "on the fence", they are facing the truth that the existence of God is an unanswerable question ... now, as for the comparing of God to some hyper powered leprechaun, that's not exactly a fair comparison ... God may not exist, or God may be an old beaded guy in a dress (in which case a comparison to bigfoot is appropriate,) or God might just be a manifestation of the universe having some form of self awareness ... now I can see where the vision of a white bearded God in sandals might be cause for the odd case of eye rolling, but does the concept of the universe having some form of superior intelligence, or self awareness seem out of the question?
Now, even if the universe is perfectly self aware and intelligent, that still would not answer the question as to whether it was indeed God, but those who might choose to understand the universe as God could be forgiven in that case for doing so ...where if it were found the bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster actually did exist, it would still be pretty foolish to consider them God.
Our "bullshit detectors" when it comes to the issue of religion, be it conventional religious beliefs, or Atheistic religious beliefs are working fine.
Thu, 2006-04-20 00:06
#43
On my wanderngs throughout the great whatever, I have to say I really enjoy dropping by here.
quote:
God may be an old beaded guy in a dress (in which case a comparison to bigfoot is appropriate,) or God might just be a manifestation of the universe having some form of self awareness ..
This one appeals to me more than others...
[img]http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mr-natural.jpg[/img]
![http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mr-natural.jpg[/img]](https://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mr-natural.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
...but hey, when here I function in your idiom. Bigfoot or a cosmic self awareness is cool too.
Since I did the free will thing this is kind of up to you, but do you know what I really am?
I'm the best you see when you look in the mirror. If that's not so good for you, then sit down and think a bit. You have tools and resources. Some of them are right here on babble.
They're called "eachother".
However, if you really need to deal direct, it may take a bit of time as long as Pat Robertson and half the Republican Party are spamming my inbox.
Thu, 2006-04-20 01:15
#44
No yards what do you find in atheism that particularly sets off your bullshit detector? I found this sets off mine.
[url=http://www.forceministries.com/]http://www.forceministries.com/[/url]
Disappointingly they have toned it down a bit, the old site had someone with a huge assault rifle in a ready fire stance looking much like Rambo complete with explosions etc.
[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: eau ]
Thu, 2006-04-20 01:40
#45
M. Spector
Atheism is not a belief. By definition it is an absence of belief.
How can an absence of belief be dogmatic?
Thu, 2006-04-20 02:06
#46
No Yards
To me it's like someone who believes the universe is 20 miles wide arguing with someone who believes the universe is 200,000,000,000 miles wide ... yes, the one who believes in the 200 mile figure is a complete idiot, but the one who believes in the 200,000,000,000 mile figure, while technically closer, is still infinitely far from the truth.
You can't ridicule an unprovable belief by pointing to the "truth" of another unprovable belief ... all the inferring away from God from the non existence of bigfoot, or to God with the existence of watch makers, doesn't prove anything.
It's not the belief system I have a problem with, it's the refusal to accept that their belief system is based on belief and not fact ... they may underpin their beliefs with some reference to tangentially related facts, but the relationship between those facts and their belief are rather forced and not a priori nor even a posteriori knowledge ... the arrogance of some atheists to say the non existence of God is proven leads me to surmise that they are no more credible than someone who claims creationism is a proven fact.
I believe that 2 plus 2 = 4 because I can see and understand the evidence ... I have no belief in the number "pleux", not by inferring that because I know the numbers "hutme" and "jerkig" are non existent numbers so an equally strange name like "pleux" must also not exist ... no, I don't believe in the number "pleux" because I can go look up the names given to all numbers, see that there are a limited number of names, check to see if "pleux" is in that list, and finding it is not, come to a firm belief based on actual viewable and understandable fact ... you can't do that with the belief in the existence or nonexistence of God ... people who say the existence or non existence of God can be "factualized" do indeed set off my BS detector.
Thu, 2006-04-20 02:10
#47
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
[b]How many progressives believe that the world is 6000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs?[/b]
Man never [b][i]walked with[/b][/i] with the dinosaurs. Man [b][i]ran from[/b][/i] the dinosaurs. There's a BIG difference.
My understanding (from early contemporaneous written records of human contact with dinosaurs) is that dinosaurs ran at about the same pace as a black bear when it's shot in the arse with salt shot (around 35 mph). So, when humans encountered dinosaurs (again, from early written records), humans learned not to run (which excited the dinosaurs) but, rather, to "play dead"...and that usually fooled the dinosaurs.
Now, as to the earth being 6,000 years old, well, that's just a fairy tale. The clear consensus is that earth is closer to 6,100 years old. I think that the confusion arises from the fact that the first accurate calculation of the earth's age was done around 1905 and at [b][i]that[/b][/i] time the earth [b][i]was[/b][/i] about 6,000 years old. But, 6,000 years was the official pronouncement in 1905 and that number, it t'would appear, has just kind of stuck in our collective consciousness.
Thu, 2006-04-20 02:19
#48
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Atheism is not a belief. By definition it is an absence of belief.How can an absence of belief be dogmatic?[/b]
I suppose in the sense that an athiest believes that God does not exist. It is, perhaps, [b][i]that[/b][/i] belief that is held dogmatically?
Thu, 2006-04-20 02:20
#49
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by GOD:
[b][img]http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mr-natural.jpg[/img][/b]
![http://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mr-natural.jpg[/img][/b]](https://extremecatholic.blogspot.com/images/mr-natural.jpg[/img][/b]){kind=link}
I always thought that R. Crumb was God.
Thu, 2006-04-20 02:21
#50
No Yards
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Atheism is not a belief. By definition it is an absence of belief.How can an absence of belief be dogmatic?[/b]
No, Atheism makes a definite statement about the existence of God, it is a doctrine proclaiming the non existence of God.
Agnosticism is the absence of belief on the subject of the existence of God, unless you want to claim it is the doctrine or belief that there is no conclusive evidence, or lack there of, on the existence of God ... to which I would have to agree ... so as an agnostic I can say that I believe that currently there is no evidence to say one way or the other if there is a God ... of course, that's my belief, and someday, someone using proof beyond the understanding of todays minds might come up with a proof one way or the other, but as I said, this is my belief ... if you want to believe in the existence or non existence of God, and accept that it is a belief, then that is just as valid as my belief ... but if you're talking known provable contemporary facts, my belief beats your belief all to hell (which I can't prove exists or doesn't exist either.)
Thu, 2006-04-20 02:25
#51
M. Spector
I have met and talked and corresponded with hundreds of atheists, and I have never met one who claims to be able to prove that God does not exist.
I know that there are a handful of atheists out there who do claim that logical proofs can be constructed to prove that God does not exist. It's a nice intellectual exercise, but quite unnecessary. Atheists don't need to prove the non-existence of God any more than biologists need to disprove the existence of unicorns.