Aether Foreshortning at c

On 2012-Feb-25 07:23, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:24:30 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:
On 2/24/2012 3:22 AM, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:42:44 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-23 19:51, DanielSan wrote:
On 2/23/2012 6:39 PM, Painius wrote:

. . .

if you're going to be an atheist
and accept that there is no God,

That's not atheism.

Indeed, atheism is not about acceptance.

Encyclopedias are only a little better than dictionaries, but just
this once:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the
existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically
the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is
simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is
contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief
that at least one deity exists."

Please... focus upon "the rejection of belief in the existence of
deities".

Is not the "rejection of belief" exactly the same in meaning as the
"acceptance of disbelief"?

What the heck does 'acceptance of disbelief' mean?

Atheists accept that there is no deity. This is not rocket science,
Danny. If you want to challenge something I say, that's okay, but I'm
not your dictionary. Here's a pretty good one when you need it...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

Atheism isn't about acceptance (nor is it about rejection); it's simply
the lack of belief in deities and supernatural agents.

Atheism appears to be all about
acceptance--the acceptance of disbelief in deities.

even when nearly all the people in
this world do believe in God or some deity, then you have to also
accept that you have no hard evidence that you could show all those
people that God does not exist.

No evidence is required.
[snip - good stuff]

I also don't see why those who lack belief in deities and supernatural
agents should ever be required to prove anything in this regard.

Those who lack belief in deities and supernatural agents are not
required to prove anything in this regard if they are comfortable with
taking such a stand without any evidential justification for that
stand. Without this justification, they are taking their stand based
upon FAITH AND FAITH ALONE.

What makes you think that?

Reason and logic.

The problem with your alleged logic is that you expect atheism to take a
stand. What is logical about one who lacks belief in something being
expected to take a stand regarding that lack of belief?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"From the deepest desires often come the deadliest hate."
-- Socrates of Athens

On 2012-Feb-25 08:30, G=EMC^2 wrote:
On Feb 25, 11:04 am, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:00:04 -0500, wrote:
On 2/23/2012 11:42 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

I also don't see why those who lack belief in deities and supernatural
agents should ever be required to prove anything in this regard.

For those of you who believe that Painus is stupid, he's not.

Look how adroitly he changed the subject regarding the beginning
of the universe once he started losing.

It's the usenet version of Three Card Monty.

Thank you!... I think.

Creating universes is still an unknown. As long as that is true
Humankind will have its Gods. One aspect I like about the "anthropic
priciple is "If the universe started with a tiny difference life would
not be here" TreBert

That's not correct -- humankind having gods is not caused by the
unknown; it's a result of belief in the unverified.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"In the realm of metaphysics, the fact that one feels the need of a
unifying principle does not prove the existence of that principle."
-- Camus

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Feb 23, 9:15*am, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:34:52 -0500, HVAC wrote:
On 2/22/2012 7:21 PM, Painius wrote:

Harlow, if you have a question for me, then you should ask me, and not
tell lies about me to others. *There is no "Painius' god", and you
know it.

Oftentimes it is necessary to tell a friend that he has bad breath.

Sorry, I don't have that, either.

I am neither a theist nor an atheist.

There is no middle ground. If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

Well, now, THERE'S a surprise!

All of them practice a form of faith.

Does it take 'faith' to not believe in leprechauns?

Your logic is flawed.

My logic is sound. *Anytime you don't have proof or at least some hard
evidence about absolutely *anything*, absolutely *any belief*, then
you are the faithful, sheepish puppet of that belief (or disbelief).

Do you have proof or hard evidence that God does or does not exist?

No?

Then whatever "side" you are on, whether or not you believe in God,
you practice that belief or DISBELIEF out of FAITH, and *not* out of
REASON nor LOGIC.

Atheism can also be seen as quite the "rebellion" against God and the
Church. *That's what most atheists like about being an atheist. *And
yet there is not one among them, no not one, who is absolutely certain
that there is no God. *How could you be? *You cannot produce one
single micro-shred of evidence to support such certainty.

faith in a deity with absolutely no hard evidence that a deity exists.
The atheist has faith that there is no deity with absolutely no hard
evidence that a deity does not exist.

LOL! *See above.

Laughter... the Best Medicine.

Laughter during any kind of debate is also a sign of nervousness.

You are in denial, and you would *never* admit it, but it's obvious
that I've hit a nerve.

You're welcome.

There are three possible answers to the question, "Does God exist?"

The only legitimate, logical and reasonable answer to that question:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I * D O N ' T * K N O W

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

Gods exist in the eyes of their believers Reality is those that
beleive Gods created all that is in the universe need not go any
further than their bible. It for them answers all. No need to build
accelerators. Mo need to protect Humanity from deadly virus. After all
its the will of God. Wars are OK as long as people have a differnt
god. War of the Gods fits well.The winner's God proves he is the best
God. O Ya TreBert

And atheists are fanatical that the theists are wrong.

What is really sad is when two countries go to war, and, say, a
Catholic kills a man on the other side who wears a Catholic symbol
around his neck. That's gotta hurt.

This is why I have no religious affiliation, nor do I connect myself
with atheists or agnostics. If someone asks me if I believe in God or
a god or many gods, I say, "I just don't know." That's the only
response that is, to me, not faith-based.

I have searched my entire life for proof or hard evidence that deities
do or do not exist. I have found no evidence either way. So I do not
believe nor do I disbelieve. I just don't know.

Is there a "pigeon hole" for that?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is buried treasure within your fear!"

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:50:49 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote:

On 2012-Feb-23 20:29, Painius wrote:
Someone, evidently a reader of and poster to alt.atheism, wrote:

(After I wrote

I am neither a theist nor an atheist.

Then what are you? Or are you just confused about the definition of
"atheist" (one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural agents)?

I am many things, a humanist for one, also a parent, a child, a war
veteran, a returned Peace Corps volunteer, many things. In this
particular context, I am neither an atheist nor a theist. I neither
believe nor disbelieve in deities and supernatural beings. I simply
don't know whether or not they exist. I can produce no proof nor hard
evidence that supernatural beings do exist or don't exist.

If that translates to a lack of belief in deities, then you are an atheist.

I do not lack a belief in deities, nor do I lack a disbelief in
deities. I just don't know whether or not deities exist.

If that translates to a position that the determination of whether
deities exists cannot be proven, then you are an agnostic.

Is it one of those two, or is there another option that you'd like to
provide that fits better?

Another option, but I don't know what it would be pigeon-holed as.

Daniel San pointed out that there is such a person as an "agnostic
atheist", also called an "atheist agnostic". In fact, there are
basically two types of agnostics:

Atheist agnostics - persons who do not believe in deities, but who
acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong.

Theist agnostics - persons who do believe in deities, but who
acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong.

So I am neither an atheist, nor a theist, nor an atheist agnostic, nor
a theist agnostic.

I just don't know whether or not deities exist. I have no proof nor
hard evidence either way.

Is there a pigeon hole for that?

(I call them "pigeon hells".)

I think they are all
full of it. All of them practice a form of faith. The theist has
faith in a deity with absolutely no hard evidence that a deity exists.

That is one conclusion based on a valid premise.

The atheist has faith that there is no deity with absolutely no hard
evidence that a deity does not exist. Any who take such stands
practice faith-based belief systems. So please learn how to read with
understanding.

It's difficult to understand when you misspell "anti-theist" or confuse
terminology (which I suspect is more likely the case with you); please
read these definitions carefully, and note, in particular, that an
atheist doesn't actually oppose beliefs:

* atheist: one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural agents

* anti-theist: one who believes that deities and supernatural
agents specifically don't exist

* theist: one who believes in one or more deities, and, optionally,
any number of supernatural agents

Yes, I do know the differences. I know how to look them up, and I
know how to read with understanding. If my writing confuses you, then
it is okay with me if you prefer to automatically assume that the
fault is with me... whether it is or not.

So is that a cop-out?

Maybe. I was just trying to be nice.

How else will you ever become a republican?

It's not clear how US politics is related.

The relation has to do with the reading skill of the person whom I was
addressing. As you may know, a republican in the US is considered a
conservative and a democrat is a liberal. The US, as you may also
know, is still a republic and not yet a true democracy. So... When a
person learns how to read with understanding, that person
automatically becomes a republican.

I guess you had to be there. (It's a joke.)

That's an interesting play on words. Nicely done.

Pleasure.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is buried treasure within your fear!"

On 2012-Feb-25 08:41, Painius wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:07:43 -0500, wrote:
On 2/24/2012 5:44 AM, DanielSan wrote:

Where is your evidence that HVAC has faith that God does not exist?

Harlow believes, as you do, that God does not exist.

I do not believe that God does not exist. I don't think you could
produce a quote from HVAC that would show that he believes God does not
exist either, but I could be wrong.

I have exactly and precisely as much belief that god exists as I do that
a witch in a gingerbread house tried to cook and eat Hansel and
Gretel.... You know, back in the day.

I hope that clears THAT up.

And so, you are an atheist. What snows me is that you are also a
skeptic. You have proved yourself to be the "skeptic's skeptic", and
yet, you are NOT skeptical that a god does NOT exist.

You obviously don't understand the true meaning of skepticism, and I
suspect that you might even be confusing it with pessimism to a degree.

That's the only difference I can find between us. You sheepishly
believe that a god does not exist, while I am skeptical of both
whether a god exists or does not exist.

HVAC has made it very clear that he is an atheist. Your attempt to fit
him into some anti-theist persona again is obviously failing ... again.

If you are not skeptical that a god does not exist, then I assume you
have proof or hard evidence of that?

Now you're trying to use assumptive selling techniques. This is a form
of manipulation that doesn't help your argument and also confirms the
general weakness of your position.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
If you believe in me, then you have much to learn about skepticism.
-- Fidem Turbare

On 2012-Feb-25 09:03, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:15 am, wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:34:52 -0500, wrote:
On 2/22/2012 7:21 PM, Painius wrote:

Harlow, if you have a question for me, then you should ask me, and not
tell lies about me to others. There is no "Painius' god", and you
know it.

Oftentimes it is necessary to tell a friend that he has bad breath.

Sorry, I don't have that, either.

I am neither a theist nor an atheist.

There is no middle ground. If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

Well, now, THERE'S a surprise!

All of them practice a form of faith.

Does it take 'faith' to not believe in leprechauns?

Your logic is flawed.

My logic is sound. Anytime you don't have proof or at least some hard
evidence about absolutely *anything*, absolutely *any belief*, then
you are the faithful, sheepish puppet of that belief (or disbelief).

Do you have proof or hard evidence that God does or does not exist?

No?

Then whatever "side" you are on, whether or not you believe in God,
you practice that belief or DISBELIEF out of FAITH, and *not* out of
REASON nor LOGIC.

Atheism can also be seen as quite the "rebellion" against God and the
Church. That's what most atheists like about being an atheist. And
yet there is not one among them, no not one, who is absolutely certain
that there is no God. How could you be? You cannot produce one
single micro-shred of evidence to support such certainty.

faith in a deity with absolutely no hard evidence that a deity exists.
The atheist has faith that there is no deity with absolutely no hard
evidence that a deity does not exist.

LOL! See above.

Laughter... the Best Medicine.

Laughter during any kind of debate is also a sign of nervousness.

You are in denial, and you would *never* admit it, but it's obvious
that I've hit a nerve.

You're welcome.

There are three possible answers to the question, "Does God exist?"

The only legitimate, logical and reasonable answer to that question:
I D O N ' T K N O W

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"Shall you dream? or just keep sleeping."

Gods exist in the eyes of their believers Reality is those that
beleive Gods created all that is in the universe need not go any
further than their bible. It for them answers all. No need to build
accelerators. Mo need to protect Humanity from deadly virus. After all
its the will of God. Wars are OK as long as people have a differnt
god. War of the Gods fits well.The winner's God proves he is the best
God. O Ya TreBert

And atheists are fanatical that the theists are wrong.

You're thinking of anti-theists. Atheists simply lack a belief in
deities and supernatural agents, and as such are not concerned about
these matters.

I suspect that what you're misinterpreting as "fanatical" are the
objections to those who attempt to push their corrupt moral views on others.

What is really sad is when two countries go to war, and, say, a
Catholic kills a man on the other side who wears a Catholic symbol
around his neck. That's gotta hurt.

That discussion has nothing to do with atheism, but I'm sure the
newsgroups for Catholics could engage you in a meaningful way on it.

This is why I have no religious affiliation, nor do I connect myself
with atheists or agnostics. If someone asks me if I believe in God or
a god or many gods, I say, "I just don't know." That's the only
response that is, to me, not faith-based.

I have searched my entire life for proof or hard evidence that deities
do or do not exist. I have found no evidence either way. So I do not
believe nor do I disbelieve. I just don't know.

Is there a "pigeon hole" for that?

If you view yourself as fitting into the group who "lacks belief in
deities and supernatural agents" then you're an atheist.

If you view yourself as fitting into the group who "believes that the
existence of deities and supernatural agents can't be proven nor
disproven" then you're an agnostic.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
I am not real (and the burden is yours if you wish to prove otherwise).
-- Fidem Turbare

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:15:27 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote:

On Feb 20, 5:46*pm, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan

wrote:
On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, *wrote:

On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote:

There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the
crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any
reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible?

I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a
knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering.

In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance.

Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding.
All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into
existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'.

So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was
"born" with the Big Bang. *So, that mother of all singularities was
able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have
generated was evidently not yet "in place".

Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible
argument. *Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup?
NaHHHHHHHHhhhh !

You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC.

Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to
the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant
phenomenon. *So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both
"born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity
would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the
singularity. *The Big Bang was an impossibility. *Face it, and stop
your pronounced lack of civility.

One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. *It's
possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big
Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity
and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for
the time being. *

I no see how, Daniel San. *As soon as singularity is "there", its very
own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. *It
would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse.

BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE! *g

How about my space convex curve kicking in at that time. No reason why
space can't be flexable. Think rubber sheet. It can curve up and down.
How does a gluon get stronger with distance.? When you think of a
singularity being smalled than a proton you are in the quantum realm.
Get the picture TreBert

Yes, Bert, your space convex curve kicks in probably about the time
that the superforce separates into the four known forces, the
electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and
gravitation. That was about 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang began.

Has a gluon been observed getting stronger with distance? If so, then
I would hazard a guess that it draws strength from the quark it heads
for. This would require a new and as yet undiscovered transfer
particle. And this is quite possible since gluons not only mediate
the strong interaction, they also participate in it.

That's an interesting proposal, Bert. Did Trebert give you that one?

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is buried treasure within your fear!"

On 2012-Feb-25 09:15, Painius wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:50:49 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist wrote:
On 2012-Feb-23 20:29, Painius wrote:
Someone, evidently a reader of and poster to alt.atheism, wrote:

(After I wrote

I am neither a theist nor an atheist.

Then what are you? Or are you just confused about the definition of
"atheist" (one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural agents)?

I am many things, a humanist for one, also a parent, a child, a war
veteran, a returned Peace Corps volunteer, many things. In this
particular context, I am neither an atheist nor a theist. I neither
believe nor disbelieve in deities and supernatural beings. I simply
don't know whether or not they exist. I can produce no proof nor hard
evidence that supernatural beings do exist or don't exist.

If that translates to a lack of belief in deities, then you are an atheist.

I do not lack a belief in deities, nor do I lack a disbelief in
deities. I just don't know whether or not deities exist.

To claim you don't know whether deities exist could be different from
claiming that you're not concerned with this matter. Further
clarification is needed.

If that translates to a position that the determination of whether
deities exists cannot be proven, then you are an agnostic.

Is it one of those two, or is there another option that you'd like to
provide that fits better?

Another option, but I don't know what it would be pigeon-holed as.

The word "pigeonhole" carries a negative connotation with it. If you
mean "classified" then the use of "classified" would more easily
indicate objective intention.

There are some classifications that can't be avoided. For example, you
cannot deny being classified as being alive, and you cannot deny being
classified as a contributor to the alt.atheism newsgroup. Likewise,
there are many other classifications that you also cannot deny.

Daniel San pointed out that there is such a person as an "agnostic
atheist", also called an "atheist agnostic". In fact, there are
basically two types of agnostics:

Atheist agnostics - persons who do not believe in deities, but who
acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong.

Theist agnostics - persons who do believe in deities, but who
acknowledge the possibility that they may be wrong.

So I am neither an atheist, nor a theist, nor an atheist agnostic, nor
a theist agnostic.

I just don't know whether or not deities exist. I have no proof nor
hard evidence either way.

Is there a pigeon hole for that?

(I call them "pigeon hells".)

You seem to be fitting yourself into the "agnostic" classification.

I think they are all
full of it. All of them practice a form of faith. The theist has
faith in a deity with absolutely no hard evidence that a deity
exists.

That is one conclusion based on a valid premise.

The atheist has faith that there is no deity with absolutely no
hard
evidence that a deity does not exist. Any who take such stands
practice faith-based belief systems. So please learn how to read
with
understanding.

It's difficult to understand when you misspell "anti-theist" or
confuse
terminology (which I suspect is more likely the case with you);
please
read these definitions carefully, and note, in particular, that an
atheist doesn't actually oppose beliefs:

* atheist: one who lacks belief in deities and supernatural
agents

* anti-theist: one who believes that deities and supernatural
agents specifically don't exist

* theist: one who believes in one or more deities, and,
optionally, any number of supernatural agents

Yes, I do know the differences. I know how to look them up, and I
know how to read with understanding. If my writing confuses you,
then
it is okay with me if you prefer to automatically assume that the
fault is with me... whether it is or not.

So is that a cop-out?

Maybe. I was just trying to be nice.

You seem to be trying to be manipulative. I suspect that you don't
approve of the proper definition of atheism (the lack of belief in
deities and supernatural agents).

How else will you ever become a republican?

It's not clear how US politics is related.

The relation has to do with the reading skill of the person whom I
was
addressing. As you may know, a republican in the US is considered a
conservative and a democrat is a liberal. The US, as you may also
know, is still a republic and not yet a true democracy. So... When
a person learns how to read with understanding, that person
automatically becomes a republican.

I guess you had to be there. (It's a joke.)

That's an interesting play on words. Nicely done.

Pleasure.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Beauty is only one of many survival traits. This is why a quest for
perfection can never genuinely be sought through to completion.
-- Fidem Turbare (January 4, 2012)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:38:09 -0500, HVAC wrote:

On 2/22/2012 1:00 PM, Painius wrote:


That's right, Bert...Don't listen to the entire scientific
community...Listen to Painus.

He once read something about dark energy and he didn't like it.

Yes, I read that dark energy must be postulated to account for the
accelerated expansion of the Universe. But if the Universe is not
expanding, then there is no need to postulate a dark energy.

Prove that the Universe is expanding, Harlow. Show me one study that
has been made here in local space that shows that space is expanding.

I'll wait right here.


How about EVERY study pointing to the reality that
the universe is expanding and a grand total of zero
that says it's not?

Yes, I suppose if you believe that there is no deity without proof or
hard evidence, then you would believe anything.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is buried treasure within your fear!"

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:35:32 -0800, DanielSan
wrote:

On 2/23/2012 10:04 PM, Painius wrote:

. . .

Then, or not, if you prefer. I certainly can't make you prove there
is no deity. But one would think that if you want to believe that
there is no deity,

I don't believe there's no deity.

You profess a LACK of belief in deities, yet you are unable to
understand that the rejection of deities is the very same thing as the
acceptance that deities do not exist. You appear to be hung up on
semantics, Danny.

And to say that you "don't believe there's no deity" is exactly and
precisely equivalent to saying you "do believe there's a deity". A
double negative cancels itself out. That's why double negatives are
considered to be poor grammar.

you would not want to just blindly accept it as
fact without looking for proof, or at the very least, good solid
evidence.

Can you provide hard evidence for your stand, Danny?

Sure. I do not believe in deities. My evidence? I do not believe in
deities.

The fact that you don't believe in deities is your stand. Your stand
cannot serve as evidence. Evidence would be something you've come
across that you can use to convince others that your stand is
justified. If you cannot justify your stand with evidence, then you
are just as much a sheep as anyone else who takes a stand without
evidence that justifies their stand.

If you still think this is unnecessary, then by all means, continue to
sheepishly follow the atheist practice of not believing in deities
just because theists cannot prove they exist. That may be enough for
you. It is not enough for me.

Since there's no evidence whatsoever ever provided for deities, I can no
more believe in them than I can leprechauns or singing, dancing
time-traveling frogs.

Since there's no evidence whatsoever ever provided for the
nonexistence of deities, I can no more believe that they don't exist
than I can believe in leprechauns or the weird frogs you describe.

And please don't try
that tired, old trick about how impossible it is to prove a negative.

It might be old because what you're doing is a logical fallacy.

There is no logical fallacy.

Yes, there is. It's called "Burden of Proof."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

It's that number three that gets to you, isn't it, Danny?...

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

How about a number four...

4. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so I don't know if God
exists or doesn't exist.

The burden of proof in this case, that is the case whether or not to
reject the belief in deities is, in my opinion, on BOTH sides.

You either believe in a deity or you
don't.

And I don't.

However, not believing in a deity just because theists cannot
prove that a deity exists, while perhaps sufficient for you, is not
sufficient for me.

So what?

In my opinion, to accept there is no deity

I don't.

just
because theists cannot prove its existence makes the atheist just as
much of a sheep as a theist.

That's not atheism.

If you reject a belief in deities, then that is atheism, and if you
cannot prove that deities do not exist, then you are just as much a
sheep as a theist who cannot prove that deities do exist.

Without hard evidence one way or the
other, both belief and disbelief are FAITH-BASED systems.

Nope. Belief without evidence is faith-based. Disbelief without
evidence is not faith-based.

You have not given sufficient reason for the above to be true. Both
belief and disbelief must be evidenced. If they are not evidenced,
then they are both faith-based.

You have faith that there are no deities. You cannot prove it.

I have already shown that it is just as easy or difficult to prove a
negative as it is to prove its corresponding positive.

Not really, no.

A man, we'll call him Jack, goes out and buys a black car.

Oh, boy. I love stories.

His
friend, Fred, calls and says that their mutual friend, Harry, told him
that Jack had bought a new, white car. To prove that he has a black
car is easy, yes? That's the "positive". But can Jack prove the
"negative" to Fred? Can Jack prove that his car is "not white"? How
hard is that?

It's just as easy for Jack to prove that his car is not white as it is
for him to prove that his car is black, isn't it?

Yep. Because there's evidence for the color of his car.

The difficulty to
prove a negative is on a 1:1 correspondence with the difficulty to
prove its corresponding positive.

Uh, no. Not unless there's positive evidence of the color of the car.

What makes you think there wasn't positive evidence of the color of
the car? The car was black. All the owner had to do was produce the
car. When the car is produced, then both the fact that it is black
and the fact that it is not white are proved.

That is why I say that the only
reason it's impossible to prove that deities and other supernatural
beings don't exist is because it's impossible to prove that they do.

Yep.

So the only
reason it's impossible to prove that there is no deity is because it's
impossible to prove that there *is* one.

Sorry, but this is the claim of religious people that there is a deity.
We aren't making a claim.

A man looks you in the eye and says, "God exists." How is this
different from a man who looks you in the eye and says, "God does not
exist."

Very different.

To use your car analogy, let's say a third man, Bob, comes up to the
three and says that he has a car that no one can detect. He claims that
it can make him invisible to detection when he gets into it. Also, the
car can fly and float on water without any water displacement. When you
try to ask him to show evidence of these car, he refuses and tells you
to prove that he doesn't have the car.

What now?

I personally would just ignore him. We are not dealing with a guy who
may or may not be lying about his car. We are dealing with billions
of people who may or may not be deluded about a deity or deities.

It is the *level* of significance that puts the burden of proof on
both sides.

I can reject a belief in fairies, because the level of significance of
fairies is nothing compared with the level of significance of a deity
or deities.

Notice that I do not say that a deity or deities are "real" just
because billions of people believe in them, I only say that a deity or
deities have a high "level of significance" because billions of people
believe in them.

So not only do theists have to produce proof or evidence that a deity
or deities exist, atheists must also produce proof or evidence that a
deity or deities don't exist. Without such evidence either way, then
both theists and atheists are like blind sheep. They steer their way
through life on a crash course of FAITH AND FAITH ALONE.

You seem to be saying that one is a claim and the other is
not. They are both claims, and they both require reliable sources for
them to be valid, verifiable claims.

Nope. One is a claim and one is a disclaim.

Semantics. Yes, the semantics in an argument can be powerful, but
when one side tries to use semantics alone as a proof, they are easily
rebutted.

You cannot seem to step away from your standard perspective and see
this objectively.

Projection.

LOL - I don't know, but I think it's objective to say, "I don't know
whether or not a deity or deities exist," while it is quite
*sub*jective to say, "I reject that a deity or deities exist."

And since the belief in a deity is a faith-based belief precisely
because it is impossible to prove that a deity exists, then the belief
that there is no deity

...is not atheism.

Then what *is* atheism to you?

If atheism is not the faith-based belief that there are no deities nor
supernatural beings, then what is it?

It is the LACK of belief in deities. It is the LACK of theism.

Semantics again. Prove to me that deities don't exist, or continue to
sheepishly and blindly follow your FAITH that they don't exist.

is a faith-based belief precisely because it is
impossible to prove that a deity does not exist.

The only answer to the question, "Does a deity exist?", that is not
faith-based is, "I don't know."

You're talking about *gnosticism, not *theism. Try to stay on topic.

A gnostic is a theist, but a theist is not necessarily a gnostic. So
for a man to look you in the eye and say, "I don't know whether or not
there is a deity," is not the behavior of a gnostic.

Yep.

It is you who
veer off topic, probably because the topic flusters you.

Nope. Not flustered at all.

What? Did you actually believe that I would expect you to admit you
were flustered? You are just *too* predictable, Danny.

That's good.
You are beginning to question WHY you are an atheist. What are the
reasons you choose to be an atheist?

I'm unable to believe something that has no evidence whatsoever?

Then why do you reject the belief (disbelieve) that deities exist?
You have produced no evidence whatsoever for that potential fact.

Are those reasons good enough to
make you absolutely certain there is no deity? And so forth.

You seem to be harping on this idea that atheism asserts that there's no
deity when, in fact, atheism is the LACK of belief in deities.

Semantics again. Very well, an atheist LACKs a belief in deities.
Now, on what evidence does an atheist base said LACK of belief in
deities? Without evidence, then the atheist is a blind sheep, just
like any theist.

I am not a theist, because I do not know if God exists.
I am not an atheist, because I do not know if God does not exist.
None of that makes me a gnostic. Nor does it make me an agnostic.

Answer this question:

"Do you believe in deities?"

I don't know if deities exist. I don't know if deities don't exist. I
just don't know.

You don't need evidence that a deity or deities don't exist. I get
that. Theists don't need evidence that a deity or deities do exist.

The need for evidence is to convince others. And yet every Sunday
people walk up the aisle to the altar after being convinced that they
not only need to believe in God, they also need to believe that they
need to be "saved" by Jesus. Every Sunday. And this is done by the
preacher without the least bit of proof or hard evidence. The
preacher convinces people that they need to believe in God, they need
to be saved by Jesus, based upon not the least twit of proof nor
evidence. They are only required to have FAITH.

Some people can be and are, every Sunday, moved to believe in a deity
without the least bit of evidence.

But when an atheist attempts to convince someone that there are no
deities, all he or she can say is that theists have no proof nor
evidence that deities exist. That's evidence, that's a statement of
fact. Yes, it can for some be a very convincing piece of evidence.

I do not consider that to be "proof", nor do I consider it to be "hard
evidence". It is one piece of evidence that may or may not show that
deities do not exist.

The theists have been unable to convince me that a deity or deities
exist. How would you try to convince me that a deity or deities do
not exist? Remember, just to say that theists have no evidence is not
enough for me. I won't walk up that aisle on Sunday, but I won't walk
up the atheist aisle, as well, unless proof or hard evidence can be
shown.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"There is buried treasure within your fear!"