I believe we all can agree that things change over time and that
worldviews evolve and change. Lately I have been noticing that the
current paradigm is moving away from atheism and agnosticism and
moving towards scientific proof of God, and I have to admit, those
arguments aren't as bad as I suspected. It is hard to deny existance
of something superior when you look at intricacies of life and the
dynamics. Just my shifting paradigm...
-Bo

From:	spenwil20002000 at yahoo.co.uk
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:54:57 -0600

I agree with mathyoo.
Could I recommend to others that reading Fraser's
'Golden Bough' or Neitzsche's 'Beyond Good and
Evil' or 'Human, All Too Human' might help understand that God does not
exist.
Mankind has created a false idea; civilisation.
Belief in God is part of this false idea.
Civilisation has created the illusion that we
are no longer priordial creatures, not animals.
Well, I'm afraid we are.
Regards.

From:	Dr. Edward Warren
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:55:04 -0600

"Bo" wrote in message
news:f9aa293c.0412051134.39c56393@posting.google.com...
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lately I have been
noticing that the
> current paradigm is moving away from atheism and agnosticism and
> moving towards scientific proof of God
The paradigms of your current associates may be in flux, but that is
not necessarily representative of the population as a whole, nor of
thinking people in particular.

> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is hard to
deny existance
> of something superior when you look at intricacies of life and the
> dynamics.
This is called the naturalistic fallacy. Given that you exist and that
you are aware of your situation and surroundings, you will find yourself
in a place which has conditions exactly suitable to your being there.
If the environment was hostile or incompatible in some important way
then you would not be there in the first place. Therefore the suitability
and seeming perfection of your universe cannot be taken as evidence
of anything more than your existence in it.

Sincerely yours,
Edward Warren

From:	mathyoo
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:10:21 -0600

The arguments are getting better, but only because apologists are
getting better at framing them, and getting better at word play. The
basic arguments they use are the same tired fallacies perpetuated over
the past 2000 years. It's like a court case-the evidence is the same
but the lawyers are getting better.

From:	Ronn_Hammonn
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Thu, 30 Dec 2004 16:29:34 -0600

Bo wrote:
>
> I believe we all can agree that things change over time and that
> worldviews evolve and change.

Okay so far.

Lately I have been noticing that the
> current paradigm is moving away from atheism and agnosticism

There was an atheism paradigm?! I must have missed the announcement.
It seems to me that atheists are the single most oppressed minority that
there is, in the U.S., at least. In many states, atheists cannot
legally be elected officals.

and
> moving towards scientific proof of God

Where the hell did you come up with this?! "God" is, oh, so slowly,
being squeezed out of existence, a steady march toward truth. "God" is,
by definition, NOT scientifically provable. Therefore, "God" can
justifiably be regarded as fiction.

To "move toward scientific proof of God" would require some sort of
positive acheivement to determine direction. Nothing of this sort has
happened (nor ever WILL happen, IMO).

, and I have to admit, those
> arguments aren't as bad as I suspected. It is hard to deny existance
> of something superior when you look at intricacies of life and the
> dynamics. Just my shifting paradigm...

Uh, oh. There you go. You spilled the beans. You are a theist. If you
can't "deny existance of something superior", then you damned sure don't
need to hang out here. And, why would you?

--
Ronn_Hammonn

From:	Dr. Newto Joseph
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:14:46 -0600

moving towards scientific proof of God

The statistical probability of any proposition being true or
false is not 50-50. It is more nearly one against infinity. True
propositions are few and far between. In the absence of specific evidence
for the truth of any proposition, the odds are slim indeed that it is true.
The skeptic who rejects out of hand any and all beliefs, particularly those
whose nature is such that it is impossible to obtain the usual sort of
evidence that produces computable probabilities, is acting on sound
statistical grounds.

New`10.

From:	Jack Hamilton
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 2004 19:04:29 -0600

Ronn_Hammonn wrote:

>There was an atheism paradigm?! I must have missed the announcement.
>It seems to me that atheists are the single most oppressed minority that
>there is, in the U.S., at least. In many states, atheists cannot
>legally be elected officals.

Even in our time of increased religiosity, that surely can't be
constitutional.

>To "move toward scientific proof of God" would require some sort of
>positive acheivement to determine direction. Nothing of this sort has
>happened (nor ever WILL happen, IMO).
>
>, and I have to admit, those
>> arguments aren't as bad as I suspected. It is hard to deny existance
>> of something superior when you look at intricacies of life and the
>> dynamics. Just my shifting paradigm...
>
>Uh, oh. There you go. You spilled the beans. You are a theist. If you
>can't "deny existance of something superior", then you damned sure don't
>need to hang out here. And, why would you?

My paraphrase of argument by design is "No one understands Windows,
therefore Bill Gates is God." He's rich enough, it must be true.

--

<> "There are some upon this earth of yours," returned the Spirit,
<> "who lay claim to know us, and who do their deeds of passion,
<> pride, ill-will, hatred, envy, bigotry, and selfishness in our
<> name, who are as strange to us and all our kith and kin,
<> as if they had never lived. Remember that, and charge their
<> doings on themselves, not us."
<>
<> The Ghost of Christmas Present

From:	Geronimo W. Christ Esq
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:04:19 -0600

Jack Hamilton wrote:

>>There was an atheism paradigm?! I must have missed the announcement.
>>It seems to me that atheists are the single most oppressed minority that
>>there is, in the U.S., at least. In many states, atheists cannot
>>legally be elected officals.
>
> Even in our time of increased religiosity, that surely can't be
> constitutional.

Apparently laws or state constitutions are only unconstitutional if
someone attempts to enforce them. Examine for instance Article 1 section
4 of the Texas constitution,

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded
from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he
acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

That's been there for a long time and there's no sign of it being struck
down.

From:	Christopher A. Lee
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:28:18 -0600

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:04:19 -0600, "Geronimo W. Christ Esq"
wrote:

>Jack Hamilton wrote:
>
>>>There was an atheism paradigm?! I must have missed the announcement.
>>>It seems to me that atheists are the single most oppressed minority that
>>>there is, in the U.S., at least. In many states, atheists cannot
>>>legally be elected officals.
>>
>> Even in our time of increased religiosity, that surely can't be
>> constitutional.
>
>Apparently laws or state constitutions are only unconstitutional if
>someone attempts to enforce them. Examine for instance Article 1 section
>4 of the Texas constitution,
>
>"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
>office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded
>from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he
>acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
>
>That's been there for a long time and there's no sign of it being struck
>down.

But remember how many years it took an atheist to get to be a notary
public in one of the redneck states.

From:	Giorgos Keramidas
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:14:39 -0600

"Geronimo W. Christ Esq" writes:
>Jack Hamilton wrote:
>>> There was an atheism paradigm?! I must have missed the
>>> announcement. It seems to me that atheists are the single most
>>> oppressed minority that
>>>there is, in the U.S., at least. In many states, atheists cannot
>>>legally be elected officals.
>> Even in our time of increased religiosity, that surely can't be
>> constitutional.
>
> Apparently laws or state constitutions are only unconstitutional if
> someone attempts to enforce them. Examine for instance Article 1 section
> 4 of the Texas constitution,
>
> "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
> office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded
> from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he
> acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
>
> That's been there for a long time and there's no sign of it being struck
> down.

Probably because it is too vague. E.g. do "dolphins" qualify as Supreme
Beings, or do they have to qualify through some sort of 'religious test'
(forbidden by the same silly sentence)?

From:	Apostate
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:28:14 -0600

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:30:45 -0600, boris516@gmail.com (Bo) wrote:

>I believe we all can agree that things change over time and that
>worldviews evolve and change. Lately I have been noticing that the
>current paradigm is moving away from atheism and agnosticism and
>moving towards scientific proof of God, and I have to admit, those
>arguments aren't as bad as I suspected. It is hard to deny existance
>of something superior when you look at intricacies of life and the
>dynamics. Just my shifting paradigm...
>-Bo

Whose current paradigm?
Are you a Hammond acolyte?
Standing on that sand base, you'll find a lot of things shifting.

--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!

I doubt, therefore I might be.

NOTICE : Due to budgetary constraints and terrorism by religious
nutball extremists, the light at the end of the tunnel will be
shut down until further notice.

From:	David V.
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Wed, 08 Dec 2004 19:55:40 -0600

Bo wrote:
> I believe we all can agree that things change over time and that
> worldviews evolve and change. Lately I have been noticing that the
> current paradigm is moving away from atheism and agnosticism and
> moving towards scientific proof of God

There is no "scientific" proof of a god. There is only conjecture
and unsupported claims.

> and I have to admit, those
> arguments aren't as bad as I suspected. It is hard to deny existance
> of something superior when you look at intricacies of life and the
> dynamics. Just my shifting paradigm...

Did you know that "gullible" is not in the dictionary?
--
Dave
UDP for WebTV

From:	Charles & Mambo
Subject:	Re: The shifting paradigm
Date:	Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:58:04 -0600

Bo wrote:
> I believe we all can agree that things change over time and that
> worldviews evolve and change. Lately I have been noticing that the
> current paradigm is moving away from atheism and agnosticism and
> moving towards scientific proof of God, and I have to admit, those
> arguments aren't as bad as I suspected.

Like what?

> It is hard to deny existance
> of something superior when you look at intricacies of life and the
> dynamics.

No, it isn't. Your turn.

--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House