Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

A point for setanta,
Facts are nice to have but we must remember that history is written by the victors. Consequently they may be viewed with some suspicion.

A beef with setanta,
I do not think that humans were ever "unselfconcious". I may be anthromorphosizing but I think that even dogs exibit some embarrassment occasionally. I have had had no experience with primates other than contemporary humans.

A point to Portal,
Logic indeed is not a box. It's the key to the stars--- If humans can accept it

PS, What you ask for isn't going to be found in any of my posts, so I suggest that you scroll through all of mine.

I can never tell if someone writes PS to mean "Personal Secret" or "Portal Star."

Setana, let me also point out that history isn't always written by the victors. It is often for the victors, but sometimes for the victims. Some examples: the old testament (assuming part of it is true), Goya's painting, slave narratives, Native American documents.
It is often the victors who sentimentalize the victims once they have won and conquered. Ex: the stereotype of the "Brave and Proud" Indian and popularity of Native American culture after they had been militarily marginalized. Another example would be in the United States with the North's love affair with southern culture after winning the civil war.

And that is why we have people who specialize in history - historians. All history (being social history) is biased, but not to the extent that it is not useful.

On a side note, there is no need to be rude in the forums, it makes you look like an ass and is inappropriate.

Setana, let me also point out that history isn't always written by the victors. It is often for the victors, but sometimes for the victims. Some examples: the old testament (assuming part of it is true), Goya's painting, slave narratives.

And that is why we have people who specialize in history - historians. All history (being social history) is biased, but not to the extent that it is not useful.

And there is no need to be rude in the forums, it makes you look like and idiot and is inappropriate.

An Agnostic Acrostic:

A re you really sure about your beliefs?
G od is so wishy washy as a concept
N o one can provide any evidence on the matter
O r shed some light into the insubstantial
S o why be a diest or an atheist?
T rue logic and reasoning need material evidence
I ssued book statements are so trite, anyhow
C ome into the light of educated indecision

-M. Frost

And the Athiest viewpoint.

Any evidence is considerable
The absence of proof is not proof of absence
He is probably just a sexist statement
Impossibilities do not exist
Eternities are impossible to prove
Substanciations are welcome
Thiests need no evidence

PS, PS, An Athiest may simply be one whose imagination is unequal to the task of surmising that an impossible creation exists!

Happy thoughts, M

Agnostic---
Athiest ---
Diest---
Thiest---
Buddist---

Atheisism has the same logical flaws as religion - except atheism does not have to prove that the deists and agnostics are wrong: They have to prove themselves to be right, since they started the argument by asserting that what is not there really is.

I was not suggesting that this were true, i was simply providing Julian Jaynes' thesis as an example of a widely and deeply researched historical synthesis leading to a speculation. In fact, i do not agree with Jaynes' conclusions, and would offer the example of burial sites found which date back tens of thousands of years--to my way of thinking, a ritual burial site is evidence of a sophisticated consciousness of "other," at least with regard to one's companions. From that, i would infer at least some degree of self-consciousness. Jaynes also quotes the passages in Iliad to suggest that the Greeks did not understand a consciousness of self, and refers to the common locution "the wine dark sea," and a belief by some that the Greeks had no concept of the color blue, as evidence of less well developed concepts of the world and of one's self on the part of humans within historic times. I feel that Jaynes developed his concept, and then went looking for evidence to support it. The entire point of my having introduced his work was to show that respected scholars with solid credentials can enter the realm of speculation and drift very far indeed from supportable statements, as a cautionary tale about the dangers of speculations which derive from what we wish to believe, as opposed to theses which derive from investigation.

Edgar, you are letting your emotions short-circuit your reasoning.

Including agnostics in that notion was absurd.

Atheists, like theists, assert something they cannot substantiate. They are two sides of one coin.

Most theists at least have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that they have no substantiation -- that their stand is based on guesswork -- or "belief/faith" as they call it.

Unfortunately, many atheists are not that ethical. They make statements like you did in your post...

..."by asserting that what is not there really is"...

...and pretending that simply asserting it makes it so.

Edgar -- MY GUESS is that you do not know what the reality is. MY GUESS is that when you assert there are no gods -- you are guessing. And MY GUESS is that when you insist and persist in that line of reasoning -- you are being as hard headed and illogical as theists who do the same thing -- only in the other direction.

You are entitled to guess all you wish, Frank. Not much I can do to change that.

I had intended to respond to this in my previous post but forgot. This is just pure crap. Napoleon was the source of this hoary old chestnut, and it is specious as hell. If history were written by the victors, Napoleon would be remembered as a monster as bad as or worse than Hitler, because that was precisely how he was seen by the the English, who were the victors. "History is written by the victors." is just another of the types of generalities which are commonly thrown out by those who do not know much about history, or cannot be bothered to do the work necessary to check things. The history to which i referred is very simple. George Washington died in December, 1799. Merriweather Lewis was sent to explore the Louisana Territory, which was not purchased by the United States until December, 1803, four years after Washington's death. The United States offered to make the purchase in 1801, but Napoleon was not willing. However, after the defeat of French forces in Hispaniola, he decided to give up his New World ambitions, and in April, 1803, offered to sell the territory--the final treaty was concluded eight months later. Jefferson had gotten a secret authorization for the "Corps of Discovery" in January, 1803, before the purchase was assured--but still well after Washington's death.

My point was that PS was making a speculative conclusion based upon very faulty information. Her contention that "Washington (who was a scientist, as were many men of his day)" is totally without foundation. In fact, the only man in America in those days considered to be a scientist would have been Benjamin Franklin. Those who founded this nation, made a constitution for it, and made the whole shebang work were mostly lawyers and merchants. P.S. has taken some isolated examples, for many of which the inferences she makes are dubious at best, and inferred a general statement about what all people have believed. This is a specious use of such isolated examples, just as is your use of Napoleon's old chestnut about the victors writing history. I actually had little doubt that PS had confused Washington with Jefferson. But i wanted to make the point that speculation about what motivates all people at any time in history needs a much better constructed synthesis than that.

A refutation of that contention needs a much better basis than a quote of Napoleon's specious remark dressed up as though it were an absolute truth.

"In fact, the only man in America in those days considered to be a scientist would have been Benjamin Franklin. "
Now this is a ridiculous. Early America had a very rich scientific and inventive early history. You don't have to make important well-known discoveries to be a scientist, it is a matter of doing experiments and research, which they did, it went well with Republican ideals. In fact, the famous French scientist Alexander Les Sceur (my spelling my be incorrect) was so interested in what American scientists were doing, he came to America (in 1818?) and spent 9 years in Philedalphia.

Setana, yes I made a mistake with the men - Jefferson sent meriweather lewis & clark. Peale had corresponded with Washington theorizing about the perpetual existance of species (this was a popular theory at the time) Jefferson asked L&C to look for mammoths to provide evidence for this theory, and didn't find any mammoths. All my other facts were right, I double checked them, and posted corrections about my mistake (please take note of them.) I appreciate your correction, but I dislike your attitude that a single mistake means all my other facts and assertions were incorrect. I prefer recollection to looking up facts for every post (even though recollection and sometimes sources are flawed)- I'm hoping to get across the general idea. This is an internet forum, not a dissertation.

Sorry, Simply because an observation is trite has little reflection on the truth of the matter.

It's simple-- Dead humans do not write books.

The ones that survived, whether it be the Holocaust, Vietnam, or a traffic accident are the ones who get to write the book.

They may have taken a beating but they and their ideas and impressions and offspring are still alive.

The losers aren't, period.

PS--i'm suggesting that the general idea which you expressed, to wit: that people once considered god to have resided in the ocean, but that advance in our knowledge of the planet we inhabit forced believers to posit god actually residing far off in the sky, is not supported, neither by what you offered as "historical" evidence, nor by anything you've offered since then. This was the core assumption underpinning your speculation on how others have perceived their deity, and you failed to make your case. In 1803, when the Lousiana Purchase was negotiated, and when Lewis launched the Corps of Discovery, empirical research was by no means as common as your suggestion: "as were many men of his day" (referring to Washington as scientist) would imply. You're throwing out absolute, blanket statements which you have not then nor since supported, and which i contend are unsupportable. Your wandering off into the subject of mammoth bones does nothing to make your thesis more coherent, in fact, accomplished the opposite effect.

akaMS--you demonstrate an even more obscure concept of how history is written, what the sources are and how the information is assembled. Total war as a concept which would result in your ludicrous contention of all of the "losers" being dead and unable to leave a record did not exist in 1803, was not practiced anywhere and is a gross absurdity. Even when the concepts of terror and total destruction were introduced into military doctrine, no one has ever accomplished that end. Survivors of both Nagasaki and Hiroshima lived to tell their tales. Had they not, there would still be a wealth of information available at both sites with which an historian could work to give a different view of the event than that of the crew of Enola Gay. "The losers aren't, period." is a laughably absurd statement.

The point, PS, which you either don't get, or choose to ignore is summarized by the expression that one swallow does not a summer make. You cite a few examples to support the thesis you have advanced as a broad generality. You don't support the broad generality by simply adding a few more unrelated references to the few you have started with. I have argued specifically against what you've written, but you don't want to face it. If you think your friend Stein and your art history and philosophy professors have good and substantial support for a thesis that all or even just most people once believed that god resided in the sea--then you ought to provide it. That was your original thesis, you did not provide any more than anectdotal evidence of literary constructs, and you provided no evidence of this being a widely-held spiritual belief, although you were willing to contend that it were. I don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not; i know that you've made statements of sweeping generality, but you've provided no reasonable support for either the contention that people once believed that god lived in the sea, nor that there were a great many "scientists" in America at the time of the Merriweather Lewis expedition. You ought to put up or shut up. So far, you've failed to do either.

I gave you my sources, and what they said. What more can I do? I'm not going to write a paper for you, and I'm not going to buy a book and look for alternate sources to the ones I provided to prove my point. I don't care if you disagree, but I don't appreciate you insinuating I'm pulling information out of no where, especially when Iv'e taken pains to look up and cite my sources for you.

I don't appreciate that you continue to answer disingenuously the charge that you have painted broad generalities based on a few citations of isolated cases. I've not asked you to pull anything out of your ass. I've pointed out that you have a handful of anectdotal cases to support a very broad thesis indeed--two in fact. You have stated that people once believed that god resided in the ocean. You have stated that Washington was a scientist as were many men of his day. You have failed to demonstrate that a belief that god was resident in the ocean was once common--none of the sources you cite substantiate that broad generality. You have failed to demonstrate that many men of Washington's "day" were scientists, and none of your sources substantiate that statement. You continue to point to singular examples, none of which have the force to support your broad generalities. I got involved in this precisely because you were making broad generalities.

George Washington died in December, 1799. Even if we posit that his "day" includes some of the years after his death, so far you've provided two examples, and two examples alone of men whom you claim were scientists. Both examples date from a time after Washington's death. The population of the United States in 1800 was in excess of 2,000,000. Two out of 2,000,000 is is one ten-thousandth of one percent. That does not support a contention that "Washington was a scientist, as were many men of his day." You have failed to demonstrate that Washington was a scientist. I've read enough of his life to believe you could never make the case.

Although this gets tedious for me, i'll state it again. I'm not objecting that the sources you provided are wrong, and i have addressed those contentions of yours. I object that you derive broad generalities from a few examples. If you can ever get that into your skull, you may see why i have objected to what you wrote. I don't object to a statement that there were men who could be called scientists in America in 1800, rather i object to the statement that Washington was a scientists and that many men of his day were. You have failed to demonstrate it. You're on even shakier ground with your contention that people believed that god resided in the sea. You've cited literary passages, which don't hew to any standard of demonstration, but rather refer to someone's imagination. That is not a basis for making a sweeping statement about what the common currency of theist belief once was regarding the place of residence of any deity.

It wouldn't do you any good to buy a book to prove your point--you can't prove it. Unless and until you can provide irrefutable evidence that most people held a spiritual belief that god resided in the ocean, your contention is pure speculation, and specious basis for your statement. The compilation of statistical data was a new effort in the 18th century, was only practiced to a limited degree in England in those days, and did not concern itself with public opinion polls about where people believed that their deity resided. Your argument is without merit on the basis of an unsupported generality, not because a few examples which you have cited may or may not be correct; and you continually ignore that aspect of my criticism.

Setanta, Perhaps I should clarify.

The God of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is dead. The emperor was forced to recant. That means that He no longer existed as a God. ergo dead.

The Imperial Japanese Government no longer exists. It was supplanted by a forcibly introduced but subsequently accepted democracy.

So consequently The God is dead, The ideas of Imperial Japan have been supplanted, and the government and schools of Imperial Japan no longer exist.

How much more dead can Imperial Japan and the scholars, pundits, and functionaries that needed the Empire to survive be

So there are no Imperial Japanese left to write about it. period.. So as a result the history of the War in the Pacific will be written by the biased westernized survivors. And they will be biased. They are human after all.

A similar transformation of the Jews seems to have taken place post WWII. No longer will Jewery passivly accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. This seems to be a voluntary change in their ideas brought on by their decimation at the hands of the Nazis and Facists.

Never again, the slogan goes, will Jewry passivly accept their fate.
That Idea has effectively supplanted the older more passive one. In other words the older idea is --dead.

Ideas are often what are eliminated by war. That humans are also killed is kind of a "collateral damage".