[ExI] Fw: Re: atheists declare religions as scams.

[spike]

Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>  and Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
wrote (attributions approximate):

>  Atheism makes a reasonable assumption, based on the available evidence
(both the logical absurdities and the lack of  physical evidence). ?That's
not a Belief...

>That's fine, and I wouldn't argue with it a bit.  But it's not atheism...
 
> Why should we feel bound by "reasonable assumptions"?...


This argument of how to define an atheist is analogous to how we are still
trying to define artificial intelligence.  Every time we reach a
kilometerstone such as a computer chess champion, Jeopardy champion,
chat-room Eliza which passes the Turing test and so forth, a chorus of geeks
chant in unison (all together now): "But that isn't true intelllllligence."
Reason: we understand exactly how it works.  Almost by definition, real
intelligence has to be something we do not understand.  So we keep raising
the bar whenever necessary.

Apply the lesson to atheism, shall we?  Everyone here will freely admit that
there is something somewhere at some time a most powerful most smart being
in the observable universe.  Something somewhere must be in first place, ja?
I recognize there might be arguments, analogous to our trying to identify
the smartest person in the world. That smartest being *might* be a human,
but it is easy enough to imagine an evolved superhuman being. 

So now, suppose we encounter a powerful being like Star Trek's Q.  He is
certainly superhuman, he gets things done by mysterious means, he is or can
be an evil son of a bitch, so in that sense he resembles the old testament
version of god.  But it is pretty clear even Q cannot do everything god is
supposed to be able to do, so the theologians tell us Q isn't god, and
atheists are safe once again.

Now suppose we get signals from the cosmos, and they send us the first 200
Mersenne primes.  Q doesn't know past 60 of those.  We know only 47 of them,
after enormous expenditure of computer time and math skills.  So whoever or
whatever sent those is now defined as god.  But wait.  What is the 201st
Mersenne prime, we pray.  God doesn't know of course; she is an unimaginably
smart and powerful being, but not infinitely so.  Once again we raise the
bar over her head, and once again atheists are safe.  See the game here?

Before we can agree on a definition of atheist, we must be able to agree on
a definition of god.  I don't see that we have agreement on either.  I don't
see that we are any closer now than we were a decade ago to an actual
definition of the term god.  Without that definition, a definition of
atheist is meaningless.

spike