I'm not Agnostic

[_bcspace]

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

Bathroom Book or Science text?

[_Jason Bourne]

I do not think it was an awesome post. Sorry Goodk. You do not KNOW there is not a God any more than I KNOW for certain there is. Neither of us know for certain. And religious people believe for all sorts of reasons. Some is tradition as you noted. Some use it as a crutch. Some actually value the spirituality it brings into their lives as well as something to perhaps focus some of the philosophical challenges that we as humans face. Many reasons.

I am happy for you if you are happy as an atheist though.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Why would a nihilist commit suicide? If life is utterly without meaning, ending it would have no more or less value than living it. And since ending takes effort, the act wouldn't be justified.

However, there are no such things nihilists. Now there are plenty of religious people who think that other peoples lives are utterly without meaning.

Geez, I guess no one around here is a Dostoyevsky fan.

[_GoodK]

You do not KNOW there is not a God any more than I KNOW for certain there is.

Yes, I do Jason. I know there is no god just like I know that there is no jolly fat man cruising the skies via magic reindeer on Christmas Eve.

You know there is no Santa, just like I do.

[_Yoda]

Not having a weird religious dogma funneled up your ass makes you an atheist.

OK....This made me laugh out loud, literally. :)

[_richardMdBorn]

You do not KNOW there is not a God any more than I KNOW for certain there is.

Yes, I do Jason. I know there is no god just like I know that there is no jolly fat man cruising the skies via magic reindeer on Christmas Eve.

You know there is no Santa, just like I do.

Do you think that you are affected by the LDS emphasis on the subjective aspect of truth? Just as LDS children assert that they know that Joseph Smith is a prophet, you now assert that you know there is no god. Could you perhaps still be affected by your upbringing?

[_JAK]

GoodK,

You have staked out a position which requires you to defend a negative assertion as if it were an affirmative. That’s a difficult position to take. Of course, you are stating your view, but you then have the most difficult position of defense. What’s your evidence for the negative claim? You can’t present evidence for this negative claim. You can argue that you see no compelling evidence for any defense of any God. However, you present no real evidence for your negative assertion, “I know there is no god…”

By attacking others for what you consider that they believe does not make a case for your affirmation of a negative claim (“no god”). While you describe what many do, you have not proved your own negative claim as an affirmative: “there is no god.” Your second claim is that: “I know…” Knowledge is based on information, evidence, and compelling, consistent data. You don’t present that for your claims (at least not here).

Without question, the invention of gods and God are constructions by assertion. Without question, those constructions are contradictory with one another and are self-contradictory as well. Hence such constructions are unreliable.

To some of your illustrations on stealing:

Have oil companies stolen?
Have tobacco companies stolen?
Are retailers stealing? At what point is a profit theft or does it become theft? What’s a reasonable profit?

Do you think there absolutes as answers to those questions?

While we may agree that stealing is wrong, we don’t agree on just what stealing is. The CEO of a bankrupt company who takes away $30 million as the company is bailed out by the federal government likely does not think he/she is stealing. It happens. Neither law nor the courts prevent it. So what is stealing?

At many levels, it’s a subjective evaluation. It may be a legal matter in some cases. It may be an ethical/moral perception at other levels.

We can find examples of stealing with which nearly everyone would agree. But the questions above (and more which could be raised) make the question of stealing a relative question.

The most successful retailing and advertising does not motivate by having “people who can think for themselves.” Successful advertising attempts to short-circuit thinking by concealing the most important information relevant to the people they seek to manipulate to their own advantage. You offer many fine examples of attempts to subvert thinking. Special interest groups do not want people to “think for themselves.” Instead, they want to discourage genuine thinking.

In the case of something we take for granted we must have such as fuel for transportation, stealing is relative. What is a “fair” income for Exxon? Is a profit of eleven billion dollars in one quarter “fair”? If a person owns Exxon stock or is directly paid by Exxon, that person likely thinks the profit is fair. If a person has just lost a job, can’t pay a mortgage, and has family obligations, this person may regard the recent fuel prices as unfair and even regard them as stealing. Yet in our system, wealth tends to transfer up. That is, the less wealthy have what little they have taken by the more wealthy. The person who can’t afford to buy a car must make payments with interest on a car. He pays more for that car than the one who has the money readily available and can write a check in full. What’s reasonable interest on the poor who must finance their home, their car, their children’s college?

On your attack of religion, it may be that the best attack is apathy. As an aggressive atheist, you are a target. People want to convert you, change you, turn you into a believer of what they believe. The greatest threat to religious inventions is apathy. Ignoring religious pundits is a greater threat than direct attack of their religious mythology.

Your first paragraph of attack uses the pronoun “I” eight times. What analysis might be made of that?

[_Jason Bourne]

You do not KNOW there is not a God any more than I KNOW for certain there is.

Yes, I do Jason. I know there is no god just like I know that there is no jolly fat man cruising the skies via magic reindeer on Christmas Eve.

You know there is no Santa, just like I do.

No you really don't. Your analogy is poor. And you sound like a Mormon bearing testimony.

Please demonstrate how you know there is no God.

[_Jason Bourne]

Do you think that you are affected by the LDS emphasis on the subjective aspect of truth? Just as LDS children assert that they know that Joseph Smith is a prophet, you now assert that you know there is no god. Could you perhaps still be affected by your upbringing?

Are not EVs subjective about truth? They know Jesus died for them and was resurrected, that he is God, that the Bible is the ONLY word of God. Not really any difference.

[_Who Knows]

Please demonstrate how you know there is no God.

Jason - do you 'know' there is no santa claus? Or are you a santa 'agnostic'?