Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bobb@vice.ico.tek.com (Bob Beauchaine) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why believe? Message-ID: Date: 6 Mar 91 05:14:27 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 42 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In point of fact, the only person who can be an atheist is God Himself. >To say dogmatically, "There is no God!" requires one to know all things, >to be all places at the same time, and have all power. Thus, you would >have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, i.e., God! Atheism >is a theological absurdity. It is self-refuting. > Your position would indeed be correct *if* your definition of atheism was accurate. If you were to take a short sojourn in alt.atheism, you would soon see that very few if any atheists subscribe to the tenet that they know for a fact God does not exist. The vast majority opinion of atheists (at least on alt.atheism) is that given the available evidence, there is absolutely no reason to believe that God exists. It's the same situation as you proposing the existence of pink unicorns. I could in no way prove that they did not exist (proof of non-existence is quite impossible), yet my inability to prove you wrong would in no way lend credibility to your claim. Dogmatic atheism is a theological absurdity. I think you will find that there are very few dogmatic atheists, though. >As for Christianity being a crutch, Christianity is shown to be true >because it does meet all the needs of man. Since God created man, He >knows what man needs. Thus, it is only logical to assume that the >religion which the true and living God reveals will meet those needs. >This position actually proves what it set out to refute. > Sorry, but hardly an iron clad proof of the existence of God. Again, as you said above, you are begging the question. If God did indeed create man, than the above *might* be true. But then, that's the question we're asking, isn't it? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM ...And malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man. - A.E.Housman