Poll - What is your religion?

[LiamToo]

Are you a Christian or an atheist?

If a theist, what is your religion?

If an atheist, why are you one?

As for me, I'm a Christian and a Catholic.

[Mike]

Atheist.

I'm not giving a reason until you do.

;)

[Drafterman]

Agnostic.

[Simpleton]

Wow! I wonder why no one ever thought of asking this question in AvC
before!

Atheist. I find no compelling evidence to believe that god(s) exist.

[Dave]

I do not have a religion. In spite of the many asinine arguments,
Atheism is not a religion.

[OldMan]

On Sep 24, 8:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, currently serving and worshiping in a
Southern Baptist church.

[Simpleton]

Well it is obvious, isn't it?

If he provides you a reason for why he should be considered a
Christian, the same can apply to a Bush or a Hitler.

But this thread is lamer than that.

Why, you ask? Note the title: "What's your religion?" Anyone saying
they are an atheist will used by Liam to "prove" that atheism is a
religion. The fact that he'd be dishonest to ignore the questions he
himself asked is of little consequence.

As lame as they come.

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 10:27 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not have a religion. In spite of the many asinine arguments,
> Atheism is not a religion.

You ruined Liam's scheme!

[Cliffe]

LiamToo wrote:
> Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>

Christian

> If a theist, what is your religion?
>

I am not a theist (supernatural theism); if your definition of atheist
is "one who does not beleive in a supernatural/theistic God" then I
guess I could be called an atheist.

But to answer anyway:

Anglican. Of the liberal/progressive persuasion (there are many
different movements within Anglicanism).

[LiamToo]

Not really because I can cite the US Supreme Courts decision on the
Torcaso v. Watkins case, which was based on the Establishment Clause
and the Engle v. Vitale case, which was based on the "Free Exercise
Clause.

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 11:05 am, Cliffe <cli...@ii.net> wrote:
> LiamToo wrote:
> > Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>
> Christian
>
> > If a theist, what is your religion?
>
> I am not a theist (supernatural theism); if your definition of atheist
> is "one who does not beleive in a supernatural/theistic God" then I
> guess I could be called an atheist.
>
> But to answer anyway:
>
> Anglican. Of the liberal/progressive persuasion (there are many
> different movements within Anglicanism).
>

Prepare yourself for these questions:

"Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God , and divine?"
"Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected, and
went to heaven?"
"Was Jesus born of a virgin?"

[DreadGeekGirl]

Liam:

I'm a Zen Buddhist. My outlook is naturalistic and rationalist so I
am also non-theistic, but that is a separate question.

Cheers
DGG

[LiamToo]

If it is lame, then you wouldn't be presenting your arguments ahead of
me. You know that it's loaded. It's not a secret why I'm a Christian.
I believe that I posted some of my reasons here already and in other
groups.

[LiamToo]

On Sep 24, 1:05 pm, Cliffe <cli...@ii.net> wrote:
> LiamToo wrote:
> > Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>
> Christian
>
> > If a theist, what is your religion?
>
> I am not a theist (supernatural theism); if your definition of atheist
> is "one who does not beleive in a supernatural/theistic God" then I
> guess I could be called an atheist.
>
> But to answer anyway:
>
> Anglican. Of the liberal/progressive persuasion (there are many
> different movements within Anglicanism).

Can you answer the following questions please?

1. Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God , and divine?

2. Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected,
and
went to heaven?

3. Was Jesus born of a virgin?

[Simpleton]

I stand corrected, your earlier post might not have been lame.

This post of yours though, was lame.

[LiamToo]

What absolute knowledge are looking for in the existence of God. If it
jumps in front of you, would you believe then?

[LiamToo]

On Sep 24, 1:40 pm, DreadGeekGirl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Liam:
>
> I'm a Zen Buddhist. My outlook is naturalistic and rationalist so I
> am also non-theistic, but that is a separate question.

Hey DGG,

I'm a big fan of Buddha myself. In fact I have an sculpture of him in
my house and that's the truth.

All the Best,
Liam

[LiamToo]

But of course, that's the lamest reason of all. Compelling evidence,
my ashtray. It's everywhere.

[LiamToo]

Now, that's a very distinguished church indeed!

[OldMan]

> "Was Jesus born of a virgin?"-

Well, you have proven yourself to be a prophet with an amazing degree
of accuracy. A full 5 minutes ahead of time you gave his words
exactly. Unless of course LiamToo is one of the multiple
personalities that you are channeling.

[LiamToo]

On Sep 24, 1:46 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> I stand corrected.

Okay then, don't be sitting down all the time.

[Drafterman]

Certainly any deity capable of creating the universe as we know it is
capable of providing me with the specific evidence needed to convince
me of its existence.

As far as what I am looking for? I can't help but admit that there is
a part of me that views the world around me and insists that there is
*something*. I don't claim that it is a rational part, or even a part
of me bent on the truth. But it's there nonetheless.

[someone on the internet]

I am not really an atheist since I believe in god, I just believe life
in and of itself is the only thing that can be classified as such.
Technically I guess I am a polytheist but only in the most loosest
sense, also I don't worship myself or any of you. I will have no gods
above myself.
Why do I believe this? Why not?

[Drafterman]

On Sep 24, 1:40 pm, DreadGeekGirl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Liam:
>
> I'm a Zen Buddhist. My outlook is naturalistic and rationalist so I
> am also non-theistic, but that is a separate question.

I've had difficulty in deciding whether or not Buddhism or Taoism
closest reflects my views.

[The Belly Bionic]

I am an atheist who practices Paganism and attends a Unitarian
Universalist church.

[LL]

On Sep 24, 8:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

LL: I'm an atheist who used to be a Catholic.

As to why I'm an atheist, I developed common sense, a sense of logic,
and a sense of the ridiculous and impossible around the age of 18.

[Keith MacNevins]

Methinks Taoism and Buddhism are quite compatible I do.

[LL]

On Sep 24, 10:27 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not have a religion. In spite of the many asinine arguments,
> Atheism is not a religion.

LL: Actually, he didnt's say it was. He asked what religion theists
were and why atheists were atheists. He didn't imnply that atheism is
a religion--so maybe he learned something from the atheists on this
group.

[LL]

On Sep 24, 12:07 pm, someone on the internet

LL: The word you're looking for is not "polythiest." It's "confused."

[Keith MacNevins]

Polytheist a cracker?

[LiamToo]

Oh yes, something is there that the mind cannot easily grasp.

"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is
something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity
reaches us only indirectly
and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am
religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt
humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of
all that is there." --Denis Brian, Einstein, A Life, New York, 1996 p.
234

[LiamToo]

On Sep 24, 2:07 pm, someone on the internet

Do tell us why not?

[LiamToo]

On Sep 24, 2:10 pm, The Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am an atheist who practices Paganism and attends a Unitarian
> Universalist church.

Ah, the flaming chalice. I know some Christians who belong to a
Unitarian Universalust church. It's very eclectic group indeed,
comprising of Humanists, Agnostics, Earth-centered, Atheists,
Buddhists, Christians and Pagans.

One of these days if I'm curiuos enough, I'll be attending one of your
services.

[LiamToo]

And I'm the reverse.

[Simpleton]

I firmly believe you are fully capable of resurrecting a thoroughly
debunked argument, and losing it yet again.

[Drafterman]

You lost common sense and a sense of logic and thus became a theist?

[Simpleton]

ah madamoiselle LL, but this is Liam. He has a history of doing
things of this nature - cut, snip, twist... Look at the title of the
thread. That's what he'll use in his <chuckle> argument.

Just one or two posts above, he is threatening to bring up a debunked
argument, which he claims will prove that the US Supreme Court
declares or considers atheism to be a religion.

[LiamToo]

It was never debunked, it was actually one of the the cases that the
American Atheists hold on to and preserved in the website as follows:

"The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First
Amendment, is distinct from a 'way of life,' even if that way of life
is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns," noted
the Seventh Circuit ruling. "A religion need not be based on a belief
in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic
faiths) nor must be it be a mainstream faith." Relevant cases include:
WISCONSIN v YODER (1972); TORCASO v WATKINS (1961); MALNAK v YOGI
(1979) and LINDELL v MCCALLUM (2003).

"Without venturing too far into the real of the philosophical,"
continued the court, "we have suggested in the past that when a person
sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of 'ultimate concern' that
occupy a 'place parallel to that filled by God in traditional
religious persons,' those beliefs represent her religion."

The Circuit Court judges also noted: "The Supreme Court has
recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the
First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in MCCREARY
COUNTY, KY V ACLU OF KY (2005)." In addition, "the Court has adopted a
broad definition of 'religion' that includes non-theistic and
atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones." The TORCASO v WATKINS
ruling declared that a state cannot "pass laws or impose requirements
which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid
those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against
those religions founded on different beliefs." Thus, opined the high
court, "'Secular Humanism' (is) an example of a religion."

You can read more here: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

[LiamToo]

The reverse. I gained common sense and a sense of logic and thus
became a theist.

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 11:38 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:06 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 10:27 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do not have a religion. In spite of the many asinine arguments,
> > > Atheism is not a religion.
>
> > You ruined Liam's scheme!
>
> Not really because I can cite the US Supreme Courts decision on the
> Torcaso v. Watkins case, which was based on the Establishment Clause
> and the Engle v. Vitale case, which was based on the "Free Exercise
> Clause.

What they have to say is irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court, as mighty
as they think they are, does not get to define what Atheism is or is
not. Also, Atheism is not mentioned in the dictum footnote you are
probably thinking about. "Secular Humanism" is and Black was wrong.
And do not forget that dictum footnotes carry no weight of law.

Engle v. Vitale has nothing to do with defining Atheism.

You need to find better sources or at least understand the ones you
use.

[Delusional?]

And thre are two distinct ways of interpreting the establishment
norm. One suggests that any religion should neitehr be persecuted nor
favored. The other is that any particular "belief" of conscience
should neither be persecuted nor favored. The latter definition of
the norm is what is a newcomer on the stage since we are in a
distinctly more pluralistic environment that ever before. To say taht
this issue has been settled by a couple of rulings is follish and not
a sufficent basis to argue that atheism is in fact a religion. that
and there are not definitioon in the scholarship of treligion that
would *ever* call atheism a religion even if there are atheistic
religions. It is a category of belief but not a category of belief
system. The latter can be a religion (even though a system of belief
is not necessaruly a religion either!). The former is a *category* of
belief but in no way implies a religion. To say taht atheism is ntoa
belief but lack thereof is just being sematic since it is a very
specific patter of belief that one assumes in contradiction to an idea
of deity. But I have a softer notion of belief than others do. If
you take the harder notion of belief which excludes atheism in any
form alone as a belief due to its negative relation to deity it is
really no more or less accurate, but a personal choice as to how one
would rather define themselves. Alas this is an area for debate, but
not a particularly useful one at that.

But at any rate... If this is the direction Liam is going, the
conclusion is still wrong.

[Delusional?]

Cool so you accept adult baptism!

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 11:48 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What absolute knowledge are looking for in the existence of God.

Don't need "absolute knowledge", just evidence would do.

> If it jumps in front of you, would you believe then?

Why not? None has been presented in tens of thousands of years. If you
have it, then let the whole world know. You'll be famous.

[OldMan]

Careful Liam, I can smell a trap. ;-)

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 12:07 pm, someone on the internet

Why? Why bother believing such in such verbal and mental gymnastics?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Sep 24, 12:10 pm, The Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am an atheist who practices Paganism and attends a Unitarian
> Universalist church.

How does an atheist practice paganism? Historically, no one has noted
the existence of atheist pagans; they have been accused of serving
false gods but not of serving no god.

[Simpleton]

Gee Liam, I already said I firmly believe you could resurrect a
debunked argument, I don't remember asking you to do it.

You already know that this was debunked just a few weeks or so ago.
Follow from this point on:

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/5f7201b04b7cbfea/b0d32fc68074b149?#b0d32fc68074b149

The only good thing is that this might jog LL's memory. So thanks for
that.

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 12:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 10:27 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do not have a religion. In spite of the many asinine arguments,
> > Atheism is not a religion.
>
> LL: Actually, he didnt's say it was.

The title of the thread is "What is your religion?"

> He asked what religion theists

> were and why atheists were atheists. He didn't imply that atheism is

> a religion--so maybe he learned something from the atheists on this
> group.

No, he implied it in the title. Sadly, from the arguments he's using,
he has learned nothing.

[Dave]

See? He has learned nothing.

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 12:59 pm, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:43 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > I firmly believe you are fully capable of resurrecting a thoroughly
> > debunked argument, and losing it yet again.
>

> It was never debunked.....

Your version has. I did so a few posting back.

[Brock Organ]

Hi Liam,

I am a Christian, and belong to a Southern Baptist Church. Though my
membership is baptist, most people would classify my beliefs as
calvinistic. I highly value the Westminster Confession of Faith as a
creedal statement. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

Can't you just let a fellow Christian snare his prey in peace? I
really wanted to watch this movie.

[LiamToo]

There are billions of Christians around the world. That number alone
would suffice.

[Brock Organ]

On Sep 24, 2:39 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> Prepare yourself for these questions:
>
> "Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God , and divine?"

Yes.

> "Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected, and
> went to heaven?"

Yes.

> "Was Jesus born of a virgin?"

Yes.

[LiamToo]

On Sep 24, 3:15 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Liam,
>
> I am a Christian, and belong to a Southern Baptist Church. Though my
> membership is baptist, most people would classify my beliefs as
> calvinistic. I highly value the Westminster Confession of Faith as a
> creedal statement. :)

Hi Brock,

I've read the Westminster Confession of Faith. As I've told OldMan,
your church is a very distinguished church indeed. I regard your
church very highly.

All the best,
Liam

[Simpleton]

Impersonating another person needs skill.

[Delusional?]

Well he was being either honest, sarchastic, or wishy washy. I am
hoping for the first, but then he has to defend his choice to persist
as a Catholic.

Have fun stormin' tha castle!

[LiamToo]

Thanks for the heads-up, but in reality I do beleive in adult baptism.
My experience was true to life, I was baptized when I was already in
High School at the age of 16.

[Brock Organ]

Thanks, Liam, for your high regards.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

Why do you say impersonating another person needs skill?

[Delusional?]

On Sep 24, 2:05 pm, Cliffe <cli...@ii.net> wrote:

> LiamToo wrote:
> > Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>

> Christian

>
> > If a theist, what is your religion?
>

> I am not a theist (supernatural theism); if your definition of atheist
> is "one who does not beleive in a supernatural/theistic God" then I
> guess I could be called an atheist.

Still not sure how any understanding of pantheism or panentheism is
not supernatural in some sense since no naturalistic explanations can
add anything to the conversation. When one needs metaphysics, one is
discussing something that lies outside of naturalistic explanations
and so, has posited a super or supra natural reality. But if you
explain God as nature then it seems to be an unnecessary construct to
add to our understanding of reality.

This is OK, but I would call you an agnostic to a little harder degree
than me since I fully admit that any construct of deity must lie
outside of sensory experience. Even if we say nature can serve as a
medium for that reality, it is not exhaustive of it.

>
> But to answer anyway:
>
> Anglican. Of the liberal/progressive persuasion (there are many
> different movements within Anglicanism).

[LiamToo]

You didn't understand. The decision was accepted and preserved by the
American Atheists in their website:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

[LiamToo]

What about here: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/court36.htm

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 11:54 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 11:39 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 11:05 am, Cliffe <cli...@ii.net> wrote:
> > > LiamToo wrote:
> > > > Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>
> > > Christian
>
> > > > If a theist, what is your religion?
>
> > > I am not a theist (supernatural theism); if your definition of atheist
> > > is "one who does not beleive in a supernatural/theistic God" then I
> > > guess I could be called an atheist.
>

> > > But to answer anyway:
>
> > > Anglican. Of the liberal/progressive persuasion (there are many
> > > different movements within Anglicanism).
>

> > Prepare yourself for these questions:
>
> > "Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God , and divine?"

> > "Do you believe that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected, and
> > went to heaven?"

> > "Was Jesus born of a virgin?"-
>
> Well, you have proven yourself to be a prophet with an amazing degree
> of accuracy. A full 5 minutes ahead of time you gave his words
> exactly. Unless of course LiamToo is one of the multiple
> personalities that you are channeling.

"I'd like to thank gad the prophet, Ezekiel, that dude who defended
Brittany on Youtube, and Kent Hovind's wife for providing the ins..."

<DARN IT! Fox cut me off again!>

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 1:25 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do you say impersonating another person needs skill?
>

I stand corrected, you don't, BO. You can simply assert that you are
impersonating Cliffe.

> On Sep 24, 4:21 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > Impersonating another person needs skill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 1:07 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

When you feel a piercing pain in your left shoulder, you can be sure
that it was BB who did it.

[Brock Organ]

Thank you, I was glad to correct you on that. Is it because you think
I am impersonating Cliffe that you responded to me?

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 1:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, I was glad to correct you on that. Is it because you think
> I am impersonating Cliffe that you responded to me?
>

No Cliffe, I was responding to BO who seems to think that
impersonation does not require any skill.

> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> On Sep 24, 4:35 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 1:25 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Why do you say impersonating another person needs skill?
>
> > I stand corrected, you don't, BO. You can simply assert that you are
> > impersonating Cliffe.
>
> > > On Sep 24, 4:21 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Impersonating another person needs skill.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[bonfly]

Skepticarean, (with Mars rising in Scorpio).

On Sep 25, 1:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>

> If a theist, what is your religion?
>

[Brock Organ]

Does it bother you that impersonation does not require any skill?

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 1:47 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does it bother you that impersonation does not require any skill?
>

Nope, monkeys always think that they are impersonating others, but it
is easy to see that they are monkeys.

[Brock Organ]

When did you first know that they were impersonating others but saw it
was
easy to see that they are monkeys?

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When did you first know that they were impersonating others but saw it
> was
> easy to see that they are monkeys?
>

Some 70 yoms ago.

> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> On Sep 24, 4:50 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 1:47 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Does it bother you that impersonation does not require any skill?
>
> > Nope, monkeys always think that they are impersonating others, but it

> > is easy to see that they are monkeys.- Hide quoted text -

[Tara]

I am an atheist.
I was born into Mormonism, left because of its social positions. I've
sense explored other religious groups: Ecumenical protestant,
Unitarian Universalist, Episcopal. I have met many kind people in my
explorations. But I stopped attending religious services since none
of it made sense.

[Brock Organ]

On Sep 24, 4:57 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When did you first know that they were impersonating others but saw it
> > was
> > easy to see that they are monkeys?
>
> Some 70 yoms ago.

Do you really think some 70 yoms ago? Tell me more about these yoms,
and how they affect your response to what I said earlier.

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 2:05 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:57 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > When did you first know that they were impersonating others but saw it
> > > was
> > > easy to see that they are monkeys?
>
> > Some 70 yoms ago.
>
> Do you really think some 70 yoms ago?

I really think now, in the present. I first knew about monkeys
impersonating some 70 yoms ago.

> Tell me more about these yoms,

A yom is just like a day. Sometimes it is equal in measure to a year,
sometimes a second, and sometimes an eon.

Very flexible.

> and how they affect your response to what I said earlier.
>

They don't. They answer the question you asked earlier.

> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Sep 24, 5:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> I really think now, in the present. I first knew about monkeys
> impersonating some 70 yoms ago.

What makes you believe they are impersonating others but it is easy to

see that they are monkeys?

> > and how they affect your response to what I said earlier.

>
> They don't. They answer the question you asked earlier.

Which question?

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 2:18 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 5:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > I really think now, in the present. I first knew about monkeys
> > impersonating some 70 yoms ago.
>
> What makes you believe they are impersonating others but it is easy to
> see that they are monkeys?
>

Repeated observation, verified independently, and repeated
independently.

> > > and how they affect your response to what I said earlier.
>
> > They don't. They answer the question you asked earlier.
>
> Which question?
>

This one:

"What makes you believe they are impersonating others but it is easy
to see that they are monkeys?"

> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Medusa]

On Sep 24, 10:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Are you a Christian or an atheist?

Atheist. But this is not a religion; it is the abscence of any
religious belief.

> If an atheist, why are you one?

Because I realized that there is no evidence for any god. Many myths,
many gods, but no proof.

Medusa

AA #2281

[Medusa]

[Brock Organ]

On Sep 24, 5:22 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > > I really think now, in the present. I first knew about monkeys
> > > impersonating some 70 yoms ago.
>
> > What makes you believe they are impersonating others but it is easy to
> > see that they are monkeys?
>
> Repeated observation, verified independently, and repeated
> independently.

Which independent observations? Who was the independent party that
verified your observations?

> > > > and how they affect your response to what I said earlier.
> > > > They don't. They answer the question you asked earlier.
> > > Which question?
>
> This one:
> "What makes you believe they are impersonating others but it is easy
> to see that they are monkeys?"

Thank you for your clarification.

Regards,

Brock

[Simpleton]

On Sep 24, 2:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 5:22 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I really think now, in the present. I first knew about monkeys
> > > > impersonating some 70 yoms ago.
>
> > > What makes you believe they are impersonating others but it is easy to
> > > see that they are monkeys?
>
> > Repeated observation, verified independently, and repeated
> > independently.
>
> Which independent observations?

The ones conducted by people, different than me, most of whom I had
not previously known.

> Who was the independent party that
> verified your observations?
>

Human beings. A very large number of them. They can be listed of
course, if I felt inclined, had the resources, and wanted you to
accept this.

I do not.

I rather let you remain unconvinced that monkeys indulge in
impersonations, and that it is easy to see that they are monkeys. It
is better that way for me.

[Gus]

On Sep 24, 10:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you a Christian or an atheist?

Christian!

> If a theist, what is your religion?

Anglican and I appreciate it very much if there are no silly
questions.

[Wanderer]

On Sep 24, 10:29?am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you a Christian or an atheist?

Christian.

> If a theist, what is your religion?

I belong to the Greek Orthodox Church.

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 1:16 pm, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:05 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 11:48 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What absolute knowledge are looking for in the existence of God.
>
> > Don't need "absolute knowledge", just evidence would do.
>
> > > If it jumps in front of you, would you believe then?
>
> > Why not? None has been presented in tens of thousands of years. If you
> > have it, then let the whole world know. You'll be famous.
>
> There are billions of Christians around the world. That number alone
> would suffice.

There are billions more that do not believe in the christian religion.
That number alone should tell you something.

I see that you would rather play evasive games instead of present any
kind of rational support for your religion.

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 1:30 pm, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:15 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 12:59 pm, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 2:43 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> > > > I firmly believe you are fully capable of resurrecting a thoroughly
> > > > debunked argument, and losing it yet again.
>
> > > It was never debunked.....
>
> > Your version has. I did so a few posting back.
>
> You didn't understand.

I do understand, It seems that you do not.

[Dave]

> What about here....

That just shows that YOU do not understand.

[The Belly Bionic]

Quite easily. One need not believe in literal gods to enjoy the
practice, rituals, traditions and holidays of a religion. I'm a pagan
who sees the gods as metaphors, not invisible people in the sky.

I'm quite certain that all of the pagan atheists that I know (and
there are quite a few of us) have noted our own existence.

[OldMan]

On Sep 24, 1:23 pm, Delusional? <dtatu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:06 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 1:03 pm, Delusional? <dtatu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 2:53 pm, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 24, 12:52 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:

>
> > > > > On Sep 24, 8:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>

> > > > > > If a theist, what is your religion?
>

> > > > > > If an atheist, why are you one?
>

> > > > > > As for me, I'm a Christian and a Catholic.
>

> > > > > I am a follower of Jesus Christ, currently serving and worshiping in a
> > > > > Southern Baptist church.
>
> > > > Now, that's a very distinguished church indeed!
>
> > > Cool so you accept adult baptism!
>
> > Careful Liam, I can smell a trap. ;-)
>
> Well he was being either honest, sarchastic, or wishy washy. I am
> hoping for the first, but then he has to defend his choice to persist
> as a Catholic.

Baptising adults is something that most denominations will do. What
makes Baptists really distinct from Catholics is that baptism is only
for believers, is only by immersion, and is only symbolic.

[Observer]

On Sep 24, 8:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you a Christian or an atheist?

Observer
Apatheist

>
> If a theist, what is your religion?

>
> If an atheist, why are you one?

There has never been any scientifically verifiable substantiating
data supporting the existence of any god , or any of the
superstitious myths that have arisen around any of these fictive
entities.

Nowhere in the scientific formulae explaining the existence of the
universe or any thing there in, is there a need for a god concept.

The concept of a super complexity many orders of magnitude greater
than all that ever has, ever will , or does now exist in the
universe(s)
is simply preposterous and solves nothing..

Catholosism-Christianity is based of vile filthy superstition.
It has produces horrors beyond belief, including the torture deaths of
over fifty million men women and children in the name of , your god
fraud , Christ.

Psychonomist

[Observer]

Observer
Hey you fucking moron . The supreme court can not and did not create
an atheist religion . It made a decision with poor language to protect
atheists from filth like catholicism .

Get over it. !

Observer

[Observer]

Observer

The Baptist's baptism is only symbolic while the Catholic baptism
is ?
You have your head up your ass again . It is all just superstitious
mumbo jumbo .
psychonomist

[Observer]

On Sep 24, 1:28 pm, Delusional? <dtatu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:05 pm, Cliffe <cli...@ii.net> wrote:

>
> > LiamToo wrote:
> > > Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>

> > Christian

>
> > > If a theist, what is your religion?
>

> > I am not a theist (supernatural theism); if your definition of atheist
> > is "one who does not beleive in a supernatural/theistic God" then I
> > guess I could be called an atheist.
>
> Still not sure how any understanding of pantheism or panentheism is
> not supernatural in some sense since no naturalistic explanations can
> add anything to the conversation. When one needs metaphysics, one is
> discussing something that lies outside of naturalistic explanations
> and so, has posited a super or supra natural reality.

Observer
"When one needs metaphysics"
"outside of naturalistic explanations"

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Just how would one go about discovering or interacting with that which
is metaphysical or out side of nature ? Are you ready to invent a
method by which this could logically be done?

Otherworldly existences are the product of incoherent imagination.

If you think not then give us some verifiable proof.

Of course you can not . It is just a never land for mental onanism.

Bah Humbug

Psychonomist.

But if you
> explain God as nature then it seems to be an unnecessary construct to
> add to our understanding of reality.
>
> This is OK, but I would call you an agnostic to a little harder degree
> than me since I fully admit that any construct of deity must lie
> outside of sensory experience. Even if we say nature can serve as a
> medium for that reality, it is not exhaustive of it.
>
>
>
> > But to answer anyway:
>
> > Anglican. Of the liberal/progressive persuasion (there are many
> > different movements within Anglicanism).

[Stephen]

On Sep 25, 12:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>

S: I consider myself to be a deeply committed follower of Jesus of
Nazareth. For me, Jesus offers me a sacrament to what I label
"ineffable sacredness". However, I am an atheist when it comes to
Zeus, Thor, Odin, Yahweh, and the other personal gods of ancient
mythology. The gods of the ancient mythology I regard as human
expressions, as symbols, as anthropomorphisms of the impersonal
holiness I believe is "real" (at least, real according to my
experiences of the sacred). I believe that whoever abides in love
abides in God.

So, if to be a Christian is to be a follower of Jesus, then I'm a
Christian - Jesus is crucial to my religious humanistic faith.
However, if to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus' cells
literally contained half of God's DNA and half of Mary's, then I'm no
Christian. If to be a Christian is to believe that Jesus' cells
started metabolising three days after his death, then I'm no
Christian. For me, that claim that "Jesus is the Son of God" is the
claim that Jesus offers a way for us to know what is holy. For me, the
claim that "Jesus is alive" is a way to say that we can still enter
into the Christ-experience and that Jesus' life can impact on ours
even though he died alone, on a cross, abandoned by his followers.

The heart of the gospel for me is in the spiritual rebirth, for
example from going from a self-centred approach to life to a wasteful
love of others. Whatever religion or secular philosophy achieves this
transformation in believers/followers I think is an instance of Christ
- who for me is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That is, I'm a
Christian Unitarian Universalist.

> If a theist, what is your religion?
>

> If an atheist, why are you one?

S: On a pragmatic level, for me to actually believe in the existence
of supernatural actors detracts from my feeling of responsibility to
act to improve the world. If there are actors with more potential/
influence than me who nevertheless choose not to act, then I feel as
though I too have an excuse for not acting. I figure if God has a good
reason to allow evil, then surely I have a good reason to allow evil
too. I am not comfortable with the logic of this type of supernatural
theism. I think a more profound experience of "God" is to recognize
that we are to act like God's hands and feet, that we are to be the
"temple of the Holy Spirit" if you like. We ought to recognize that if
we do not show others love and compassion, then others will go
unloved.

To believe that there is God who could answer a prayer to move a
literal mountain I find absurd. However, I do think God, or at least
faith in God, has the ability to move the obstacles within our own
psyches.

On a more logical level, I have no belief in personal supernatural
beings because it is difficult for me to imagine how supernatural
beings can transcend time yet also act within time. Having said that,
I do think there is some mileage in the idea that whatever caused the
universe to exist had the ability to "decide" to create the universe
and I also think there is some mileage to the concept of the "cosmic
will". Ultimately I'm apatheistic - it does not bother me if the
creator is a personal being or a mathematical equation that somehow
lead to the "instability" we call the Big Bang. I'm happy to assert
that there is a "more" than the observable universe, but feel unable
to describe this more. Put another way, since I am unable to provide
evidence of the unobservable, I'm reticent to make dogmatic claims
about the "more".

I think there is a usefulness to panentheism, in that there is a God-
presence within the universe; an "ineffable sacredness". To me, all
religions appear to be attempts to enter into this God-presence. I'm
content with the idea that the experience of God may "just" be a
result of neurons firing in our craniums, in a similar way that
"emotional" love can probably be explained by certain hormones and our
evolution as a social animal.

(Aside, believing in the existence of an afterlife for me detracts
from the value I place on this life - the soul for me is a metaphor
for the emergent complexity I experience as self-consciousness).

[Brock Organ]

On Sep 24, 5:39 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Which independent observations?
>
> The ones conducted by people, different than me, most of whom I had
> not previously known.
>
> > Who was the independent party that
> > verified your observations?
>
> Human beings. A very large number of them. They can be listed of
> course, if I felt inclined, had the resources, and wanted you to
> accept this.
>
> I do not.
>
> I rather let you remain unconvinced that monkeys indulge in
> impersonations, and that it is easy to see that they are monkeys. It
> is better that way for me.

I'll accept your forfeiture of the argument, then. I didn't think you
really had a position anyway. Thanks for your responses. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Mike]

On Sep 24, 11:53 am, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 8:39 am, Mike <mblas...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 24, 9:29 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you a Christian or an atheist?
>

> > > If a theist, what is your religion?
>
> > > If an atheist, why are you one?
>

> > > As for me, I'm a Christian and a Catholic.
>

> > Atheist.
>
> > I'm not giving a reason until you do.
>
> > ;)
>
> Well it is obvious, isn't it?
>
> If he provides you a reason for why he should be considered a
> Christian, the same can apply to a Bush or a Hitler.
>
> But this thread is lamer than that.
>
> Why, you ask? Note the title: "What's your religion?" Anyone saying
> they are an atheist will used by Liam to "prove" that atheism is a
> religion. The fact that he'd be dishonest to ignore the questions he
> himself asked is of little consequence.
>
> As lame as they come.

I thought about it but I can't figure out what we would do,

affirm our disbelief in God?

Maybe Liam isn't an atheist because he thinks that he would be bored?

Just kiddin Liam,

;)

[Dave]

On Sep 24, 7:38 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll accept your forfeiture of the argument, then. I didn't think you
> really had a position anyway. Thanks for your responses. :)

So, what you are saying is that anyone that doesn't want to play your
sophomoric games loses the argument? Again, you are wrong. That makes
them the winner.

[LL]

On Sep 24, 1:02 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 11:38 am, LiamToo <liamtoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 1:06 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 10:27 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I do not have a religion. In spite of the many asinine arguments,
> > > > Atheism is not a religion.
>
> > > You ruined Liam's scheme!
>
> > Not really because I can cite the US Supreme Courts decision on the
> > Torcaso v. Watkins case, which was based on the Establishment Clause
> > and the Engle v. Vitale case, which was based on the "Free Exercise
> > Clause.
>

> What they have to say is irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court, as mighty
> as they think they are, does not get to define what Atheism is or is
> not. Also, Atheism is not mentioned in the dictum footnote you are
> probably thinking about. "Secular Humanism" is and Black was wrong.
> And do not forget that dictum footnotes carry no weight of law.

LL: Humanism, is, in fact considered a religion--even by humanists.

The court never said atheism is a religion but that it should be
treated the same as religion when it comes to rights.

>
> Engle v. Vitale has nothing to do with defining Atheism.
>

> You need to find better sources or at least understand the ones you
> use.

[LL]

On Sep 24, 1:11 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 24, 12:12 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 10:27 am, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do not have a religion. In spite of the many asinine arguments,
> > > Atheism is not a religion.
>

> > LL: Actually, he didnt's say it was.
>
> The title of the thread is "What is your religion?"
>
> > He asked what religion theists
> > were and why atheists were atheists. He didn't imply that atheism is
> > a religion--so maybe he learned something from the atheists on this
> > group.
>
> No, he implied it in the title. Sadly, from the arguments he's using,
> he has learned nothing.

LL: You're right. And I admit I didn't look at the title of the thread
when I made my comment.