Re: Are most Atheists Democrats?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> V wrote:
>>>> On Oct 10, 11:18?am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> V wrote:
>>>>>> Do atheists generally gravitate to the lesser of two
>>>>>> evils and go with Dems as a vote for 'less religion'
>>>>>> in gov?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or do you put religion on the back burner when it
>>>>>> comes to politics and vote either party?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a-gnostic and a-politcal so I don't vote but I
>>>>> don't know why not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are e you a a Gnostic or an agnostic?
>>>
>>> I'm agnostic.
>>
>> The position of intellectual cowards.
>
> Oh what's the intellectually brave position?
To actually take a position on the issue, instead
of pretenting that a specious non-position is a position.
Do you believe in god?
Alessandro J.
> Do you believe in god?
I don't understand your question : would you care to define " God ",
and why assuming a position based entirely on belief is in any way
relevant ?
Cheers
V
> Jack wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
We are getting away from the Dems and Reps and how the atheists vote
topic.
Anyway, my god is nature and inner peace...if you don't serve them you
die plain and simple.
And these Gods are not the sun or the moon or some unknown spiritual
being - they are just that nature and inner peace.
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0
Here is my history...
I am not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. Although I'd rate myself about
85% atheist in by beliefs about Yahweh. Both my parents and their
families are all Catholics.
My journey was long one. I was catholic for 50 years and am now a
freethinking agnostic. It all started for me many years ago when an ex-
Krishna / Wicca massage lady I used to go to told me that Jesus was
not born on December 25 and the Christians adopted that day to steal
it away from the pagans holiday. Then she told be it was the same with
Halloween.
A few years later I found out that the gospels were not written by the
apostles or men that even knew Jesus. Then I came across Freke's book
the Jesus Mysteries. I started to study the beginnings of Christianity
and how the Nicene council was nothing more than a political
convention to find out who had the best spin on Jesus.
Then talked with an ex-rabbi that turned into an atheist and guided me
into more detailed study. Meeting that ex-rabbi was a major turning
point in my life of religious beliefs. Then one day read in the news
that the church abolishes limbo. This did not go well with the concept
of the truth is that which does not change.
Then watched some shows on the history channel about religion that
gave me more insight. I started to talk with atheists after being
banned from all the Christian and Buddhist forums. (My study time with
atheists gets limited from prejudice on their part as have been banned
from most of the atheists forums as well such as evil bible dot com,
ethical atheist, Internet infidels, X-Christians and others.)
So, after about 7 years of developing cracks in my Catholic
foundations, I decided that I would make a change in my way of life
and so evolved into an Agnostic Freethinker. I still use many tools
from spiritual as well as religious sources.
I don't hold prejudices like many hard core defiance based atheists
do. If the tool can be tested for truth and does not require faith,
then I make use of it. (I should say it does take 'faith to test'
sometimes, but once you start the test, the need for faith
evaporates.)
_ Prof. Jonez _
Sure -- Do you believe in any of the "gods" heretofore posited by man
as defined in their myriad recorded religions ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> V wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 11:18?am, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> V wrote:
>>>>>>>> Do atheists generally gravitate to the lesser of two
>>>>>>>> evils and go with Dems as a vote for 'less religion'
>>>>>>>> in gov?
>>
>>>>>>>> Or do you put religion on the back burner when it
>>>>>>>> comes to politics and vote either party?
>>
>>>>>>> I'm a-gnostic and a-politcal so I don't vote but I
>>>>>>> don't know why not.
>>
>>>>>> Are e you a a Gnostic or an agnostic?
>>
>>>>> I'm agnostic.
>>
>>>> The position of intellectual cowards.
>>
>>> Oh what's the intellectually brave position?
>>
>> To actually take a position on the issue, instead
>> of pretenting that a specious non-position is a position.
>>
>> Do you believe in god
>
> We are getting away from the Dems and Reps and how the atheists vote
> topic.
Atheists, being generally more educated and intelligent, tend to
land to the left of what is the midline of the current U$ political spectrum.
> Anyway, my god is nature and inner peace...if you don't serve them you
> die plain and simple.
Prove it.
> And these Gods are not the sun or the moon or some unknown spiritual
> being - they are just that nature and inner peace.
Then "they" are irrelevant to any issue regarding Religion and Atheism.
>
> http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0
>
> Here is my history...
>
> I am not an atheist, I'm an agnostic.
The position of intellectual cowards.
>Although I'd rate myself about 85% atheist in by beliefs about Yahweh.
Then you aren't a-theist at all.
> Both my parents and their families are all Catholics.
Irrelevant.
>
> My journey was long one. I was catholic for 50 years and am now a
> freethinking agnostic.
No, you're a coward who's rejected the utter nonsense of
Catholicism/Christianity,
but don't have the moral or intellectual courage to profess that to your
family, friends and peers for fear of retribution and ostracism.
> It all started for me many years ago when an
> ex- Krishna / Wicca massage lady I used to go to told me that Jesus
> was not born on December 25 and the Christians adopted that day to
> steal it away from the pagans holiday. Then she told be it was the
> same with Halloween.
>
> A few years later I found out that the gospels were not written by the
> apostles or men that even knew Jesus. Then I came across Freke's book
> the Jesus Mysteries. I started to study the beginnings of Christianity
> and how the Nicene council was nothing more than a political
> convention to find out who had the best spin on Jesus.
>
> Then talked with an ex-rabbi that turned into an atheist and guided me
> into more detailed study. Meeting that ex-rabbi was a major turning
> point in my life of religious beliefs. Then one day read in the news
> that the church abolishes limbo. This did not go well with the concept
> of the truth is that which does not change.
>
> Then watched some shows on the history channel about religion that
> gave me more insight. I started to talk with atheists after being
> banned from all the Christian and Buddhist forums. (My study time with
> atheists gets limited from prejudice on their part as have been banned
> from most of the atheists forums as well such as evil bible dot com,
> ethical atheist, Internet infidels, X-Christians and others.)
>
> So, after about 7 years of developing cracks in my Catholic
> foundations,
"Cracks" ??
Is the Grand Canyon a "crack" ?
> I decided that I would make a change in my way of life
> and so evolved into an Agnostic Freethinker.
At least you now believe in evolution.
Once you get over your fear, you'll evolve into the
rational reality that you are in fact an atheist.
> I still use many tools
> from spiritual as well as religious sources.
Manure shovels?
> I don't hold prejudices like many hard core defiance based atheists
> do. If the tool can be tested for truth and does not require faith,
> then I make use of it. (I should say it does take 'faith to test'
> sometimes, but once you start the test, the need for faith
> evaporates.)
Translation: You're an atheist who still too afraid to shuck off the baggage
and lies you've ingested most of your life, so you take what you fallaciously
assume is a "middle ground", again out of fear of what other's close to
you, or those who hold power over you, may think.
Alessandro J.
Well, the answer to that is relatively easy : No, not really, though
there's something about the pagan traditions that were squashed by
Christianity, and I think eastern religions are worthy of
investigation.
I jump ahead of myself, and if by that answer you brand me an atheist,
my reply will be that disposing of man-made fantasies doesn't get us
very far in addressing matters concerning first causes, and I remain
very open on the issue whether the Universe was created by an external
conscious force, infact, I don't see much difference between saying
that the universe created itself, or saying that a god created itself
and then created the universe, as they are both patently absurd. Quite
obviously we are not equipped to deal with these subjects.
Forgive me for having been presumptious, hopefully you were taking the
conversation elsewhere, but even in that case the above statement,
though unprovoked, still stands.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On 11 Ott, 19:02, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> Alessandro J. wrote:
>>> On 10 Ott, 22:53, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you believe in god?
>>
>>> I don't understand your question : would you care to define " God ",
>>> and why assuming a position based entirely on belief is in any way
>>> relevant ?
>>
>> Sure -- Do you believe in any of the "gods" heretofore posited by man
>> as defined in their myriad recorded religions ?
>
> Well, the answer to that is relatively easy : No, not really,
Then you're an atheist.
> though
> there's something about the pagan traditions that were squashed by
> Christianity, and I think eastern religions are worthy of
> investigation.
>
> I jump ahead of myself, and if by that answer you brand me an atheist,
Already done, see above.
> my reply will be that disposing of man-made fantasies doesn't get us
> very far in addressing matters concerning first causes,
"First causes" don't religion (or gods) make.
> and I remain very open on the issue whether the Universe
> was created by an external conscious force,
Even if your absurd irrational "external conscious force" were
the "first cause", it doesn't a religion or god make.
> infact, I don't see much difference between saying
> that the universe created itself, or saying that a god created itself
> and then created the universe, as they are both patently absurd.
What's "patently absurd" about self creation?
If self-creation is possible, then there's no reason for the "first cause"
"external conscious force". If self-creation isn't possible, then your
"external conscious force" must have had an ex-external force (conscious
or otherwise) to explain it.
> Quite obviously we are not equipped to deal with these subjects.
That you lack the capacity doesn't mean everyone else does.
> Forgive me for having been presumptious, hopefully you were taking the
> conversation elsewhere, but even in that case the above statement,
> though unprovoked, still stands.
Your illogical statement doesn't stand simply because you uttered it.
Alessandro J.
> >> Sure -- Do you believe in any of the "gods" heretofore posited by man
> >> as defined in their myriad recorded religions ?
>
> > Well, the answer to that is relatively easy : No, not really,
>
> Then you're an atheist.
No, I'm not.
That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
explain the Universe. And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
( cut )
> "First causes" don't religion (or gods) make.
I would say that a conscious " first cause " would technically be
definable as a God. But maybe I'm wrong, and you can clarify that
( cut )
>
> > infact, I don't see much difference between saying
> > that the universe created itself, or saying that a god created itself
> > and then created the universe, as they are both patently absurd.
>
> What's "patently absurd" about self creation?
In my limited understanding of physics, and of our Universe and its
laws, I find it inconceivable that " something " can be borne of "
nothing ", and by " something " I mean the laws that would allow
matter to explode out of a void. I cannot fathom that, and so far
neither can the scientists probing the nanoseconds after the " Big
Bang ". I strongly believe that even if some genius manages to crawl
back to the moments leading to the Big Bang, I doubt we will be able
to explain how out of complete nothingness came String Theory, or
Quantum Physics or any of the apparent laws that regulate our
universe.
You sound pretty confident in the plausibility of spontaneous self
creation, maybe you can point me to some site where a layman like
myself can make sense of it ?
>
> If self-creation is possible, then there's no reason for the "first cause"
> "external conscious force". If self-creation isn't possible, then your
> "external conscious force" must have had an ex-external force (conscious
> or otherwise) to explain it.
I totally agree. But maybe in this world or dimension outside our
universe, things are such that a " something out of nothing " scenario
is possible : in this Universe, I don't see it happen ( but maybe you
do, again, pointers would be much appreciated ) but outside of it,
who knows ? pure speculation, I agree, but it's the only way I can
make sense of things.
>
> > Quite obviously we are not equipped to deal with these subjects.
>
> That you lack the capacity doesn't mean everyone else does.
Point conceded. You have the ability to explain how the forces that
molded the underlying laws of our universe came about out of " nothing
" ?
> > Forgive me for having been presumptious, hopefully you were taking the
> > conversation elsewhere, but even in that case the above statement,
> > though unprovoked, still stands.
>
> Your illogical statement doesn't stand simply because you uttered it.
By stand I meant that the statement(s) were still an accurate
expression of my opinion.
Thanks for your time and your challenging thoughts.
Kate
<pyr...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>On 12 Ott, 05:40, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> >> Sure -- Do you believe in any of the "gods" heretofore posited by man
>> >> as defined in their myriad recorded religions ?
>>
>> > Well, the answer to that is relatively easy : No, not really,
>>
>> Then you're an atheist.
>
>No, I'm not.
>That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
>I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
>explain the Universe. And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
>concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
Being open on the matter makes you an atheist.
A-theist means not theist - or doesn't believe in a god or gods.
Nothing more.
The big bang theory does not require 'something out of nothing' God
does not imply a good way to get something out of nothing. You are
still left with the problem of where the god came from.
>
>>
>> > Quite obviously we are not equipped to deal with these subjects.
>>
>> That you lack the capacity doesn't mean everyone else does.
>
>Point conceded. You have the ability to explain how the forces that
>molded the underlying laws of our universe came about out of " nothing
That someone may have the capacity does not mean Reality Check must.
false dichotomy
DanielSan
> On 12 Ott, 05:40, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>>>> Sure -- Do you believe in any of the "gods" heretofore posited by man
>>>> as defined in their myriad recorded religions ?
>>> Well, the answer to that is relatively easy : No, not really,
>> Then you're an atheist.
>
> No, I'm not.
> That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
> I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
> explain the Universe. And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
> concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of deities.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
****************************************************
Alessandro J.
> >> Then you're an atheist.
>
> >No, I'm not.
> >That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
> >I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
> >explain the Universe. And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
> >concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
>
> Being open on the matter makes you an atheist.
>
> A-theist means not theist - or doesn't believe in a god or gods.
> Nothing more.
I don't know. Wouldn't it be equivalent to saying " There is no God
" , hence not allowing for the possibility for such a thing to exist
( as opposed to the Theist who is absolutely certain a God exists ) ?
Otherwise being open on the matter would make you more " one who
doesn't know ".
On this thread, as on the net in general, which is my only place of
verification, definitions seem to overlap somewhat.
Just for the record, I'm quite happy to be labeled an " Atheist " by
the Christian zealots, although I consider myself an agnostic, at
least so far.
> >> > Quite obviously we are not equipped to deal with these subjects.
>
> >> That you lack the capacity doesn't mean everyone else does.
>
> >Point conceded. You have the ability to explain how the forces that
> >molded the underlying laws of our universe came about out of " nothing " ?
>
> That someone may have the capacity does not mean Reality Check must.
> false dichotomy
Very well : Does *anyone* have that capability at present time ?
If yes, I'd like to know about it. If no, as I presently understand,
we can only hope that the future will prove me wrong and everything
will be explained, but I seriously doubt it.
Alessandro J.
>
> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of deities.
>
My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
belief in the absence of God in the same way as the Theist proclaims
his belief in his presence.
I'm not aware of any hardcore Theists leaving the possibility open
that God might not exist ; isn't then " Atheist "as you define it a
misnomer of sorts, if you leave the possibility open then you doubt
somewhat, which makes you someone who doesn't know, rather than
someone who believes a negative.
John Baker
<pyr...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of deities.
>>
>
>My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
>belief in the absence of God in the same way as the Theist proclaims
>his belief in his presence.
Then you clearly don't understand the matter at all. The atheist
merely notes the complete lack of evidence for the existence of any
gods, and infers from this that it is therefore unlikely that any gods
*do* exist.
No evidence = no reason to believe. Nothing more than that.
And by the way - a minor nitpick, but 'atheist' is not a proper noun.
It's merely a descriptive term and should not be capitalized except at
the beginning of a sentence. Capitalizing the term creates the
misconception that atheism is a formal, structured belief system,
which it isn't. It's merely the absence of the theist's belief system.
>
>I'm not aware of any hardcore Theists leaving the possibility open
>that God might not exist ; isn't then " Atheist "as you define it a
>misnomer of sorts, if you leave the possibility open then you doubt
>somewhat, which makes you someone who doesn't know, rather than
>someone who believes a negative.
Atheists don't "believe a negative." We simply don't believe the
*positive* claims made by theists, based on their inability to support
such claims with any real evidence.
DanielSan
> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of deities.
>>
>
> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
> belief in the absence of God in the same way as the Theist proclaims
> his belief in his presence.
Nope. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in gods. "Belief in
the absence of God" is not atheism.
>
> I'm not aware of any hardcore Theists leaving the possibility open
> that God might not exist ; isn't then " Atheist "as you define it a
> misnomer of sorts, if you leave the possibility open then you doubt
> somewhat, which makes you someone who doesn't know, rather than
> someone who believes a negative.
No.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On 12 Ott, 05:40, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>>>> Sure -- Do you believe in any of the "gods" heretofore posited by
>>>> man as defined in their myriad recorded religions ?
>>
>>> Well, the answer to that is relatively easy : No, not really,
>>
>> Then you're an atheist.
>
> No, I'm not.
Yes, you are.
> That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
> I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
> explain the Universe.
You're an a-theist.
You may still be a deist.
> And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
> concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
If you don't understand "universe", you've got problems.
Are you open to a blue tea-pot orbiting Saturn ?
> ( cut )
>
>> "First causes" don't religion (or gods) make.
>
> I would say that a conscious " first cause " would technically be
> definable as a God.
More accuratly a Deity. But since you seem so ignorant about
Deism, Theism and the Universe, perhaps you should Wiki for
some rudimentary understanding, then rejoin the discussion.
> But maybe I'm wrong, and you can clarify that
See above.
>
> ( cut )
>
>>
>>> infact, I don't see much difference between saying
>>> that the universe created itself, or saying that a god created
>>> itself and then created the universe, as they are both patently
>>> absurd.
>>
>> What's "patently absurd" about self creation?
>
> In my limited understanding of physics, and of our Universe and its
> laws, I find it inconceivable that " something " can be borne of "
> nothing ",
Then you find Deities to be the same.
> and by " something " I mean the laws that would allow
> matter to explode out of a void.
Your ignorance of modern physics isn't a rational argument
for a "conscious first cause".
> I cannot fathom that,
We know.
> and so far neither can the scientists probing the nanoseconds after the "
> Big
> Bang ".
You're lying. Just because you're ignorant and "can't fathom" things,
doesn't
mean everyone else is. You speak only for your own ignroant self, and
not for "scientists" worldwide.
> I strongly believe that even if some genius manages to crawl
> back to the moments leading to the Big Bang, I doubt we will be able
> to explain how out of complete nothingness came String Theory, or
> Quantum Physics or any of the apparent laws that regulate our
> universe.
Your ignornace is showing again.
> You sound pretty confident in the plausibility of spontaneous self
> creation, maybe you can point me to some site where a layman like
> myself can make sense of it ?
Are you too ignorant to Wiki/Google anything?
Start reading Scientific American, it's usually dumbed down enough
that laity can comprehend.
Hawking has a excellent ability to communicate to the non-scientific
masses - http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html
>>
>> If self-creation is possible, then there's no reason for the "first
>> cause" "external conscious force". If self-creation isn't possible,
>> then your "external conscious force" must have had an ex-external
>> force (conscious or otherwise) to explain it.
>
> I totally agree. But maybe in this world or dimension outside our
> universe, things are such that a " something out of nothing " scenario
> is possible :
If it's possible "there", then it's possible "here".
> in this Universe, I don't see it happen
And *you* never will.
> ( but maybe you
> do, again, pointers would be much appreciated ) but outside of it,
> who knows ? pure speculation, I agree, but it's the only way I can
> make sense of things.
So do you have pointers where we can see this Deity/God you
propose created the universe?
>
>>
>>> Quite obviously we are not equipped to deal with these subjects.
>>
>> That you lack the capacity doesn't mean everyone else does.
>
> Point conceded. You have the ability to explain how the forces that
> molded the underlying laws of our universe came about out of " nothing
> " ?
Check http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
for starters.
>
>>> Forgive me for having been presumptious, hopefully you were taking
>>> the conversation elsewhere, but even in that case the above
>>> statement, though unprovoked, still stands.
>>
>> Your illogical statement doesn't stand simply because you uttered it.
>
> By stand I meant that the statement(s) were still an accurate
> expression of my opinion.
> Thanks for your time and your challenging thoughts.
Remember, just because you "can't fathom" something doesn't mean
you get to fabricated utter nonsense to fill that intellectual void. Better
to just leave it empty, as the hunger will cause you to search for real
knowledge.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of
>> deities.
>>
>
> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
> belief in
Wrong. A-theists don't "proclaim belief" ... they renounce "belief".
Atheists do *not* believe.
Christians and morons will claim that Atheists *believe* in not.
Get it right, lest someone mistake you for a christian or moron.
Jerry Kraus
Atheism is impossible. Everyone believes in something, and that is
their deity. Atheists like to think their deities are superior to
other deities. They aren't. Usually, they're dumber than the deities
of conventional religions: e.g., science, scientists, the scientific
method.
DanielSan
> On Oct 18, 12:44 pm, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>> Alessandro J. wrote:
>>> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
>>>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
>>>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of
>>>> deities.
>>> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
>>> belief in
>> Wrong. A-theists don't "proclaim belief" ... they renounce "belief".
>>
>> Atheists do *not* believe.
>>
>> Christians and morons will claim that Atheists *believe* in not.
>>
>> Get it right, lest someone mistake you for a christian or moron.
>
> Atheism is impossible. Everyone believes in something, and that is
> their deity.
......WHAT?!
> Atheists like to think their deities are superior to
> other deities.
And what deities do atheists believe in?
> They aren't. Usually, they're dumber than the deities
> of conventional religions: e.g., science, scientists, the scientific
> method.
..........science is a deity? WHAT?!
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
"one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful"
definition of deity, Merriam-Webster's dictionary. If you believe in
nothing as being good or powerful, why would you do anything? Ergo,
Atheism is impossible, psychologically.
DanielSan
>
> definition of deity, Merriam-Webster's dictionary.
That's the THIRD definition. Here's the FULL Merriam-Webster definition:
1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY; b: capitalized :
god 1, supreme being
2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
> If you believe in
> nothing as being good or powerful, why would you do anything? Ergo,
> Atheism is impossible, psychologically.
I see. You want to play with words.
"Deity", in the context of atheism is the FIRST or SECOND definition. I
listen to a radio program on the weekdays which has a voice actor that
does impressions, and he's nicknamed the "Voice Deity" because of the
quality of those impressions.
You took another meaning for the word and tried to graft it onto atheism
(which is a lack of theism, or lack of belief in gods/deities). You
might as well say "atheism is impossible" because an atheist uses the
term "god" when talking about, for example, Mario Batali's ability to cook.
No wonder you're confused.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm using the full definition. You are ignoring it. And you think
I'm confused?
Maxwell's demon
>
> I'm using the full definition. You are ignoring it. And you think
> I'm confused?
This thread was already a silly argument over semantics. You've made it
downright idiotic.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
In other words, you've have no credible argument or refutation. Yes,
I know.
Everyone believes in something. What they believe in is their God.
Just going by the dictionary.
Scott H
> Wrong. A-theists don't "proclaim belief" ... they renounce "belief".
Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that reason. A
less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
John Baker
wrote:
The only way Jerry can "win" an argument is by being so deliberately
obtuse that his opponent finally walks away in disgust.
Alex W.
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb747dcc-3f3a-46a6...@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
"one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful"
definition of deity, Merriam-Webster's dictionary. If you believe in
nothing as being good or powerful, why would you do anything? Ergo,
Atheism is impossible, psychologically.
==============
A deity is a self-aware and active entity. Science is certainly not a
self-contained aware agency. It is a term to denote a particular way of
looking at and explaining the natural universe. There is nothing guiding or
intelligent about science. It does not have a personality, is not
individual. It cannot therefore be a deity.
MDCotBO
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6lve2oF...@mid.individual.net...
I liked the "There is nothing intelligent about science." line.
As most people should know, it is just a descriptive noun.
My question however is : who got to decide that a deity needed a
personality, or needed to be an individual, otherwise it wouldn't qualify as
a Deity?
Doesn't sound very intelligent to believe these are immutable requirements.
Accepted language definitions of themselves do not represent the nature or
reality of a thing, except the generally agreed beliefs of the uninformed.
---------------------------------------------
PS the biggest mistake poeple always make is that the thoughts they have are
their own thoughts.
Work that one out and you'll be lot closer to discovering reality and the
meaning of life. :)
Mike Painter
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cb747dcc-3f3a-46a6...@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> "one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful"
>
> definition of deity, Merriam-Webster's dictionary. If you believe in
> nothing as being good or powerful, why would you do anything? Ergo,
> Atheism is impossible, psychologically.
Zeno's paradox. Lucky for us it had no bearing on reality.
>
> ==============
>
> A deity is a self-aware and active entity. Science is certainly not a
> self-contained aware agency. It is a term to denote a particular way
> of looking at and explaining the natural universe. There is nothing
> guiding or intelligent about science. It does not have a
> personality, is not individual. It cannot therefore be a deity.
It's not, but if it was there would be > 0 gods.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Oct 18, 12:44 pm, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>> Alessandro J. wrote:
>>> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
>>>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
>>>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of
>>>> deities.
>>
>>> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
>>> belief in
>>
>> Wrong. A-theists don't "proclaim belief" ... they renounce "belief".
>>
>> Atheists do *not* believe.
>>
>> Christians and morons will claim that Atheists *believe* in not.
>>
>> Get it right, lest someone mistake you for a christian or moron.
>
> Atheism is impossible.
Complete bullshit.
> Everyone believes in something, and that is
> their deity.
You really are a deluded pig-ignorant imbecile, aren't you thumper?
> Atheists like to think their deities are superior to
> other deities. They aren't. Usually, they're dumber than the deities
> of conventional religions: e.g., science, scientists, the scientific
> method.
You're drunk again, aren't you moron?
Reality_CheckŠ
Complete BULLSHIT.
atheism =/= agnosticism
Kane
> "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:6lve2oF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
Deities are particular entities. When we talk about things that don't
have personality or individuality we call them forces or name them and
describe them. An easy example is "karma", which is something some
people believe in but is not a deity under any sensible definition.
Add a minor twist and embody similar forces with a personality and you
get the greek furies which are deities under any sensible definition.
This is a purely semantic argument. The way the words 'god' and
'deity' are used imply personality and traits. To deny that is to
redefine the words. Anyone is welcome to do that. Just be sure to
provide a crank to english dictionary with your posts.
PS. If you think that your thoughts are your own, but they are not,
who is to blame for the mistake?
Work that one out and you'll know why there are so many atheists.
Scott H
> Scott H wrote:
>> Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that
>> reason. A less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
>
> Complete BULLSHIT.
>
> atheism =/= agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
Reality_Check�
So? Who wrote that entry, exactly?
Once again: atheism =/= agnosticism
That you and perhaps other "agnostics" think it does explains
a lot about the defects and cowardice in your position.
Shrik...@gmail.com
Spare us. The problem is that we can see quite
a few strong atheists posting on Usenet. If atheism
= agnosticism, what do we call such people?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the U.S., "atheists" are science idolators. In general, science,
scientists, and the scientific method are their supremely good and
powerful entities. What atheists really should be doing, but don't,
is comparing the power of their scientific deity to the power of the
Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu deities. What Jews, Christians,
Muslims and Hindus would argue, is that there is nothing in science
that cannot be accounted for by their Gods. Indeed, the modern
scientific method itself is essentially a fusion of Christian theology
with Greek pagan empiricism, the latter a direct product of intensely
polytheistic thinking.
DanielSan
> I'm confused?
>
Sorry, but you're confused. We don't believe in deities (gods). I
believe in Jim Ward, the "voice deity", though.
DanielSan
Wrong.
Atheism and agnosticism are two different beasts. Atheism concerns the
lack of belief. Agnosticism concerns the lack of knowledge. Simply
put: Atheists do not believe in gods and agnostics do not know whether
gods exist or not.
Alex W.
"Kane" <jason....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ee2c7d54-c3c1-4377...@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Deities are particular entities. When we talk about things that don't
have personality or individuality we call them forces or name them and
describe them. An easy example is "karma", which is something some
people believe in but is not a deity under any sensible definition.
Add a minor twist and embody similar forces with a personality and you
get the greek furies which are deities under any sensible definition.
=============
Another excellent example would be lingam stones or holy relics: worshippers
clearly do not regard them as individual entities in their own right, they
see them as objects imbued with magical properties,or possibly as devices or
conduits to make contact with a deity.
Reality_CheckŠ
Who's "we", eh numbnuts?
> If atheism = agnosticism, what do we call such people?
Once again moron - Atheism does NOT equal Agnosticism.
Never did and never will.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Oct 19, 2:11 pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 10:49 am, "Reality_Check " <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>>> Scott H wrote:
>>>> Reality_Check wrote:
>>>>> Scott H wrote:
>>>>>> Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that
>>>>>> reason. A less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
>>
>>>>> Complete BULLSHIT.
>>
>>>>> atheism =/= agnosticism
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>>
>>> So? Who wrote that entry, exactly?
>>
>>> Once again: atheism =/= agnosticism
>>
>>> That you and perhaps other "agnostics" think it does explains
>>> a lot about the defects and cowardice in your position.
>>
>> Spare us. The problem is that we can see quite
>> a few strong atheists posting on Usenet. If atheism
>> = agnosticism, what do we call such people?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In the U.S., "atheists" are science idolators.
Do society a favor and kill yourself now, jackass.
Reality_CheckŠ
> Scott H wrote:
>> Reality_CheckŠ wrote:
>>> Wrong. A-theists don't "proclaim belief" ... they renounce "belief".
>>
>> Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that
>> reason. A less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Atheism and agnosticism are two different beasts. Atheism concerns
> the lack of belief. Agnosticism concerns the lack of knowledge. Simply
> put: Atheists do not believe in gods and agnostics do not know
> whether gods exist or not.
More accurately, Agnostics claim that "god" is "unknowable", which is
absurdly self-refuting.
Reality_CheckŠ
>
> What do even strong atheists mean by the word "God"?
>
> Why do you imagine they would treat it any differently than the
> fairies at the bottom of the garden?
Those are leprechauns you silly fool ...
Kane
> DanielSan wrote:
> > Scott H wrote:
I'm not sure about self-refuting, but it is certainly meaningless.
The inevitable logical conclusion is that any position on which there
is irrefutable doubt is unknowable. By avoiding the slippery slope of
degrees of doubt with the absolute of "any doubt" the agnostic must
agree that just as god might exist, so might pink elephants, unicorns
and spaghetti monsters. By equating the unprovable with the
unknowable they have no choice but to always respond "maybe" to "does
X exist?" regardless of the absurdity of X.
So is agnosticism intellectually untenable? Even the agnostics have
to say maybe.
DanielSan
The citation you provided agrees with RC.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Oct 19, 4:26 pm, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>> DanielSan wrote:
>>> Scott H wrote:
>>>>> Wrong. A-theists don't "proclaim belief" ... they renounce
>>>>> "belief".
>>
>>>> Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that
>>>> reason. A less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>>> Atheism and agnosticism are two different beasts. Atheism concerns
>>> the lack of belief. Agnosticism concerns the lack of knowledge.
>>> Simply put: Atheists do not believe in gods and agnostics do not
>>> know whether gods exist or not.
>>
>> More accurately, Agnostics claim that "god" is "unknowable", which is
>> absurdly self-refuting.
>
> I'm not sure about self-refuting,
In order to make an affirmative claim that "something" is "unknowable",
you'd have to "know" something about it. In fact you'd have to
have sufficient knowledge about that thing to rule out the possibility
that it is knowable ... and back around again ... ad infinitum, ad absurdum.
> but it is certainly meaningless.
That too.
> The inevitable logical conclusion is that any position on which there
> is irrefutable doubt is unknowable.
Which is bullshit.
> By avoiding the slippery slope of
> degrees of doubt with the absolute of "any doubt" the agnostic must
> agree that just as god might exist,
Exactly. And they must know a sufficient amount about this thing
to back up their absurd assertion that it is "unknowable".
> so might pink elephants, unicorns
> and spaghetti monsters. By equating the unprovable with the
> unknowable they have no choice but to always respond "maybe" to "does
> X exist?" regardless of the absurdity of X.
Yet Agnosticism doesn't respond with "maybe" ... it *declares* that
unicorns,
pink elephants, pasta monsters and god(s) are "unknowable".
> So is agnosticism intellectually untenable? Even the agnostics have
> to say maybe.
They're mostly semi-educated idiots who've recently escaped the shackles
and absurdity of religion, yet who are too scared to admit their newly found
atheism
in public or amongst friends and family, for fear of ostracism and obloquy.
So they invent this personal refuge of "agnosticism" falsely assuming it is
some neutral middle ground that will garner them acceptance from both
sides of the fence, atheism and theism.
What they don't realize is that *neither* side respects their cowards' lair.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
How so? Even orthodox Christianity tells us that we cannot know.
Reality_CheckŠ
How do they know they cannot know?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
It's doctrine, just like every other claim about gods.
DanielSan
> On Oct 19, 2:11 pm, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 10:49 am, "Reality_Check " <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Scott H wrote:
>>>> Reality_Check wrote:
>>>>> Scott H wrote:
>>>>>> Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that
>>>>>> reason. A less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
>>>>> Complete BULLSHIT.
>>>>> atheism =/= agnosticism
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>>> So? Who wrote that entry, exactly?
>>> Once again: atheism =/= agnosticism
>>> That you and perhaps other "agnostics" think it does explains
>>> a lot about the defects and cowardice in your position.
>> Spare us. The problem is that we can see quite
>> a few strong atheists posting on Usenet. If atheism
>> = agnosticism, what do we call such people?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In the U.S., "atheists" are science idolators.
BZZT! Wrong.
Reality_CheckŠ
No knowledge required. Ipso facto.
Ricky Jimenez
What do you call somebody who says that God or Gods may or may not
exist but they have never communciated with earthlings up to now?
Ricky Jimenez
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
Reality_CheckŠ
Clueless.
Reality_CheckŠ
Same as the first time you asked -- clueless.
Shrik...@gmail.com
> Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 10:49 am, "Reality_Check " <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
> >> Scott H wrote:
> >>> Reality_Check wrote:
> >>>> Scott H wrote:
> >>>>> Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that
> >>>>> reason. A less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
>
> >>>> Complete BULLSHIT.
>
> >>>> atheism =/= agnosticism
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>
> >> So? Who wrote that entry, exactly?
>
> >> Once again: atheism =/= agnosticism
>
> >> That you and perhaps other "agnostics" think it does explains
> >> a lot about the defects and cowardice in your position.
>
> > Spare us. The problem is that we can see quite
> > a few strong atheists posting on Usenet.
>
> Who's "we", eh numbnuts?
Those of us who are paying attention, painfully red and
itchy nuts.
> > If atheism = agnosticism, what do we call such people?
>
> Once again moron - Atheism does NOT equal Agnosticism.
Oh. Well, it's hard to tell what "=/=" means. "!=" must
be what you meant.
> Never did and never will.
Well, "=/=" never did and never will mean anything.
Anyway, you are contradicting yourself. Either, atheism
means a lack of belief in god, or it is something different
than agnosticism. You can't eat your blotter acid and
have it too.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Oct 19, 4:19 pm, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>> Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 19, 10:49 am, "Reality_Check " <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>> Scott H wrote:
>>>>> Reality_Check wrote:
>>>>>> Scott H wrote:
>>>>>>> Atheism is divided into strong atheism and weak atheism for that
>>>>>>> reason. A less ambiguous term for weak atheism is agnosticism.
>>
>>>>>> Complete BULLSHIT.
>>
>>>>>> atheism =/= agnosticism
>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>>
>>>> So? Who wrote that entry, exactly?
>>
>>>> Once again: atheism =/= agnosticism
>>
>>>> That you and perhaps other "agnostics" think it does explains
>>>> a lot about the defects and cowardice in your position.
>>
>>> Spare us. The problem is that we can see quite
>>> a few strong atheists posting on Usenet.
>>
>> Who's "we", eh numbnuts?
>
> Those of us who are paying attention, painfully red and
> itchy nuts.
Stop playing with them and they won't be so painful and itchy.
>
>>> If atheism = agnosticism, what do we call such people?
>>
>> Once again moron - Atheism does NOT equal Agnosticism.
>
> Oh. Well, it's hard to tell what "=/=" means. "!=" must
> be what you meant.
You must be wrong, numbnuts.
>
>> Never did and never will.
>
> Well, "=/=" never did and never will mean anything.
Wrong again, numbnuts. Get back to us when you
comprehend basic mathematical symbols.
> Anyway, you are contradicting yourself. Either, atheism
> means a lack of belief in god, or it is something different
> than agnosticism.
Your false dichotomy is true in each case, but not
mutually exclusive as you erroneously posit.
>You can't eat your blotter acid and
> have it too.
You're projecting again, numbnuts.
What part of Atheism does NOT equal Agnosticism don't you comprehend?
Scott H
> The citation you provided agrees with RC.
So weak atheism means not claiming God exists, and agnosticism means
claiming that we don't (or can't) know that God exists.
Sounds reasonable.
Scott H
> The citation you provided agrees with RC.
So weak atheism means not claiming God exists, and agnosticism means
Reality_CheckŠ
Sounds like you're as clueless as you were yesterday.
Atheism = lack of belief
Agnosticism = the absurd claim that god is unknowable.
Reality_CheckŠ
> DanielSan wrote:
>> The citation you provided agrees with RC.
>
> So weak atheism means not claiming God exists,
Wrong again, jackass.
> and agnosticism means
> claiming that we don't (or can't) know that God exists.
Are all self-proclaimed agnostics as ignorant as you are?
>
> Sounds reasonable.
To an ignoramus like you.
DanielSan
Well, weak atheism (along with strong atheism) means that we do not
believe that God exists, but you're right otherwise.
Reality_CheckŠ
Curly ?
Errol
>
> > So weak atheism means not claiming God exists,
>
> Wrong again, jackass.
>
> > and agnosticism means
> > claiming that we don't (or can't) know that God exists.
>
> Are all self-proclaimed agnostics as ignorant as you are?
>
> > Sounds reasonable.
>
> To an ignoramus like you.
Unskilled and unaware of it.
Numbnuts, jackass, clueless, moron..........wow your ability to reason
is as unimpressive as your vocabulary. Just a bunch of puffed up
opinions, insults and prejudices yakking vacuously about nothing. Go
read a book, any one.
Reality_CheckŠ
Can't argue the uncomfortable facts, can you bozo ?
Jerry Kraus
> >>>>>> Alessandro J. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
> >>>>>>>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
> >>>>>>>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of
> >>>>>>>> deities.
> >>>>>>> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
> >>>>>>> belief in
> >>>>>> Wrong. A-theists don't "proclaim belief" ... they renounce "belief".
> >>>>>> Christians and morons will claim that Atheists *believe* in not.
> >>>>>> Get it right, lest someone mistake you for a christian or moron.
> >>>>> Atheism is impossible. Everyone believes in something, and that is
> >>>>> their deity.
> >>>> ......WHAT?!
> >>>>> Atheists like to think their deities are superior to
> >>>>> other deities.
> >>>> And what deities do atheists believe in?
> >>>>> They aren't. Usually, they're dumber than the deities
> >>>>> of conventional religions: e.g., science, scientists, the scientific
> >>>>> method.
> >>>> ..........science is a deity? WHAT?!
> >>> "one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful"
> >>> definition of deity, Merriam-Webster's dictionary.
> >> That's the THIRD definition. Here's the FULL Merriam-Webster definition:
>
> >> 1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY; b: capitalized :
> >> god 1, supreme being
> >> 2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
> >> 3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
>
> >>> If you believe in
> >>> nothing as being good or powerful, why would you do anything? Ergo,
> >>> Atheism is impossible, psychologically.
> >> I see. You want to play with words.
>
> >> "Deity", in the context of atheism is the FIRST or SECOND definition. I
> >> listen to a radio program on the weekdays which has a voice actor that
> >> does impressions, and he's nicknamed the "Voice Deity" because of the
> >> quality of those impressions.
>
> >> You took another meaning for the word and tried to graft it onto atheism
> >> (which is a lack of theism, or lack of belief in gods/deities). You
> >> might as well say "atheism is impossible" because an atheist uses the
> >> term "god" when talking about, for example, Mario Batali's ability to cook.
>
> >> No wonder you're confused.
>
> > I'm using the full definition. You are ignoring it. And you think
> > I'm confused?
>
> Sorry, but you're confused. We don't believe in deities (gods). I
> believe in Jim Ward, the "voice deity", though.
>
> --
> ****************************************************
> * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
> *--------------------------------------------------*
> * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
> * can't eat it? *
>
> - Show quoted text -
Simply saying "we don't believe in deities" doesn't mean you don't.
It just means you don't like the word "deity". And, that you don't
like the idea that you might be wrong, like other people who believe
in deities.
Scott H
> Scott H wrote:
>> claiming that we don't (or can't) know that God exists.
>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>
> Sounds like you're as clueless as you were yesterday.
>
> Atheism = lack of belief
>
> Agnosticism = the absurd claim that god is unknowable.
That's what I said!
Reality_CheckŠ
> It just means you don't like the word "deity". And, that you don't
> like the idea that you might be wrong, like other people who believe
> in deities.
Simply saying "we believe in deities" doesn't mean you do.
It just means you like the word "deity". And, that you don't
like the idea that you might be wrong, like other people believe
who believe in your deities.
Reality_CheckŠ
> impossible because they view us from inside their religion with the
> presumption that their god is real for everybody including those
> outside it. And that all sensible people know this.
>
> So they rationalise one instead.
>
> Which is why common usage gets both atheists and agnostics wrong.
>
> Too many vocal agnostics redefine their position to fit the theist and
> common usage misrepresentation, and attack atheists first because of
> first the common usage misrepresentation and then because we don't fit
> it.
And because they are intellectual cowards, mostly former theist fools who
are afraid of admitting their new found atheism to the friends and family.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't suppose you know how to use a dictionary? No, I didn't think
so.
Errol
>
> And because they are intellectual cowards, mostly former theist fools who
>
No you are as usual, totally wrong and totally clueless.
I am proud to be agnostic. Whether this universe was created initially
by some kind of god or not can never be proven either way. Personally
it doesn't bother me if it was or wasn't. Unlike flying pasta monsters
and tooth faiires, that have no basis for existance, the basis for
existance of a creator is the fact that cosmology supposes the
universe flashed into existance from nowherre (I keep these
explanations as simple as possible so that you can follow them without
excessive wrinkling of your cro-magnon brow). A creator is a good
story for humans to get their head arounds something out of nothing.
Kilmir
> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
> > Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
> > existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of deities.
>
> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
> his belief in his presence.
>
> I'm not aware of any hardcore Theists leaving the possibility open
> that God might not exist ; isn't then " Atheist "as you define it a
> misnomer of sorts, if you leave the possibility open then you doubt
> somewhat, which makes you someone who doesn't know, rather than
> someone who believes a negative.
Here are some definitions that might clarify the concepts:
A- / theism - a position on the belief in deities
A- / gnosticism - a position on the belief of the possibility of
proving or disproving a claim
Theist - Believer in one or more deities
Atheist - Not a believer in one or more deities
Gnostic - Believes a certain claim can or has been proven or disproven
Agnostic - Doubts the possibility to prove or disprove a certain claim
Gnostic theist - Believer in one or more dieties and believes it can
or has been proven to exist
Agnostic theist - Believer in one or more dieties, but believes it is
not possible to prove the existence thereof
Agnostic atheist (Weak atheist) - Not a believer in one or more
deities, but believes it is not possible to disprove the existence of
one
Gnostic atheist (Strong atheist) - Not a believer in one or more
deities and believes it can or has been disproven to exist
To focus a bit more on the weak/string atheist difference, these
statements seem to clarify the positions better then long
descriptions:
Weak atheist - "I do not believe in god(s)"
Strong atheist - "I believe there are no gods"
Oh and a finally a definition that has almost nothing to do with the
above:
The truth - reality as it is
Kilmir
#1944
curmudgeon
theology are still dealing.
The shock delivered by evolutionary science, which reminded us of our
biological roots, and the three-fold shock of the three great atheist
critiques of religion; as a false antidote to the misery of poverty (Karl
Marx), as a psychological illusion (Sigmund Freud), as an expression of our
resentment against the power of the strong (Friedrich Nietzsche).
*curmudgeon*
"The best read illiterate in the country"
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Oct 20, 9:56 pm, "Reality_CheckŠ" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>> And because they are intellectual cowards, mostly former theist
>> fools who
>> are afraid of admitting their new found atheism to the friends and
>> family.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> No you are as usual, totally wrong and totally clueless.
>
> I am proud to be agnostic. Whether this universe was created initially
> by some kind of god or not can never be proven either way.
And what evidence/proof do you have for such a preposterous statement?
> Personally it doesn't bother me if it was or wasn't. Unlike flying pasta
> monsters
> and tooth faiires, that have no basis for existance,
Prove it you ignorant imbecile.
> the basis for
> existance of a creator is the fact that cosmology supposes the
> universe flashed into existance from nowherre
As opposed to some invisible "creator" flashing into existance from nowhere,
eh?
> (I keep these
> explanations as simple as possible so that you can follow them without
> excessive wrinkling of your cro-magnon brow). A creator is a good
> story for humans to get their head arounds something out of nothing.
You're an imbecile, you deserve to be "agnostic", enjoy your ignorance.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On 17 okt, 21:07, "Alessandro J." <pyr...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
>>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
>>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of
>>> deities.
>>
>> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
>> belief in the absence of God in the same way as the Theist proclaims
>> his belief in his presence.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any hardcore Theists leaving the possibility open
>> that God might not exist ; isn't then " Atheist "as you define it a
>> misnomer of sorts, if you leave the possibility open then you doubt
>> somewhat, which makes you someone who doesn't know, rather than
>> someone who believes a negative.
>
> Here are some definitions that might clarify the concepts:
>
> A- / theism - a position on the belief in deities
Bullshit.
A-theism = the absence of theism. ipso facto.
> A- / gnosticism - a position on the belief of the possibility of
> proving or disproving a claim
Bullshit.
A-gnosticism = the absence of gnosticism. ipso facto
Your absurd "definitions" make as much sense
a claiming that "bald" is a position on hair.
> Theist - Believer in one or more deities
Wrong again.
Deist is a believer in one or more deities.
Theist is the belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the Universe
> Atheist - Not a believer in one or more deities
Wrong again.
A-theist = one who doesn't believe in theism. ipso facto.
<snip rest of your definitional delusions>
Alessandro J.
> And by the way - a minor nitpick, but 'atheist' is not a proper noun.
> It's merely a descriptive term and should not be capitalized except at
> the beginning of a sentence. Capitalizing the term creates the
> misconception that atheism is a formal, structured belief system,
> which it isn't. It's merely the absence of the theist's belief system.
I'll ( eventually ) address the other issues you discuss elsewhere in
this thread, but in my opinion this capitalizing point you bring up is
not minor at all.
Point noted, thanks.
Alessandro J.
>
> > That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
> > I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
> > explain the Universe.
>
> You're an a-theist.
>
> You may still be a deist.
Fair enough, by *your* current definition, I'm an atheist and may
still be a Deist. However, there seems to be different definitions of
atheism floating around, which was the main reason for me delurking in
the first place, in an attempt to figure it all out.
> > And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
> > concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
>
> If you don't understand "universe", you've got problems.
I cannot really understand something that is infinite, presumably
appeared out of nowhere, not to mention the concepts that keep it
together .
But then, I don't understand women either so it must just be me.
> Are you open to a blue tea-pot orbiting Saturn ?
After lengthy consideration, ( and avoiding for practical reasons to
enter any discussion on the nature of colour ), I concluded that what
you need for that to be possible is an Alien Civilisation that :
1. is rather more advanced than us
2. is aware of Russell
3. has a sense of humour.
I'd probably have it orbiting the moon though, or on a collision
course with some space program vessel. I can picture them splitting
themselves laughing ( unless they are already built that way ) on
listening in on Discovery informing Houston about a teapot just
crashing on their front window.
>> I would say that a conscious " first cause " would technically be
>> definable as a God.
> More accuratly a Deity. But since you seem so ignorant about
> Deism, Theism and the Universe, perhaps you should Wiki for
> some rudimentary understanding, then rejoin the discussion.
See above as one of the conflicting sources floating around.
> > and so far neither can the scientists probing the nanoseconds after the "
> > Big
> > Bang ".
>
> You're lying. Just because you're ignorant and "can't fathom" things,
> doesn't
> mean everyone else is. You speak only for your own ignroant self, and
> not for "scientists" worldwide.
Fair enough.
I have an intense dislike of approximation from people posting in
newsgroups where I have a modicum of expertise, and I get irritated
when they reply " you know what I mean ! " when their inaccuracies are
pointed out to them, so I'll stand corrected
However, it is a fact, that the closer you get to the big bang, the
more speculative scientific reasoning becomes : How do we get to the
Planck era, who or what decided the laws that allowed and that
followed from the big bang, what was there before the singularity, the
singularity being " something ", how did it get there ?, What's all
this about time beginning at the Big Bang, in short, how do we get to
that something situation we can work things out from and whose origins
are presently, at best, educated guesswork ?
From your stance, I assume you believe science will one day provide
all the answers. The road covered so far seems to be compelling
evidence it will one day do just that, I , however, believe there is a
limit beyond which human comprehension cannot go. Infact, given our
limitations, I believe we have gone far beyond what could be expected
of us : It might and probably will progress toward greater precision,
but because of infinite regress of theories, an ultimate answer will
never be accessible, in my opinion.
> > You sound pretty confident in the plausibility of spontaneous self
> > creation, maybe you can point me to some site where a layman like
> > myself can make sense of it ?
>
> Are you too ignorant to Wiki/Google anything?
Googling and Wiking " atheism " and " agnosticism " is what got me
posting in this NG in the first place : there doesn't seem to be a
consensus. Granted, maybe too many people are allowed to have their
say.
>
> Start reading Scientific American, it's usually dumbed down enough
> that laity can comprehend.
>
> Hawking has a excellent ability to communicate to the non-scientific
> masses -http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html
I read a few divulgative tomes by Hawking, Dawkins, Taylor et al. but
I never got stuck much in the details as I tend to reason in broad
concepts, and however complex and fascinating the theory, it just
boils down to infinite regress.
> >> If self-creation is possible, then there's no reason for the "first
> >> cause" "external conscious force". If self-creation isn't possible,
> >> then your "external conscious force" must have had an ex-external
> >> force (conscious or otherwise) to explain it.
>
> > I totally agree. But maybe in this world or dimension outside our
> > universe, things are such that a " something out of nothing " scenario
> > is possible :
>
> If it's possible "there", then it's possible "here".
The Universe as we know it might not be " Everything ", so what is
impossible " here " might be possible " there ".
> Checkhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
> for starters.
Interesting, but I tried infinite regress on that and it still
worked . Properties, events in vacuums, a spacetime curvature are
still " something ".
However esoteric, random fluctuations in quantum mechanics are still "
something ".
I'll reread it again when I get the time, thanks for the link , the
whole site is rather interesting.
> Remember, just because you "can't fathom" something doesn't mean
> you get to fabricated utter nonsense to fill that intellectual void. Better
> to just leave it empty, as the hunger will cause you to search for real
> knowledge.
I hope you are still referring to my sloppy exposition, and not
proposing instead that i'm fabricating delusions to fill in my lack of
understanding of the nature of the Universe.
Kilmir
> Kilmir wrote:
> > On 17 okt, 21:07, "Alessandro J." <pyr...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
> >> On 17 Ott, 04:42, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Atheism does not exclude the possibility of a Deity to explain the
> >>> Universe either. Atheism simply says that we do not believe in the
> >>> existence of deities. It says nothing about the possibility of
> >>> deities.
>
> >> My understanding of the matter was that the Atheist proclaims the
> >> belief in the absence of God in the same way as the Theist proclaims
> >> his belief in his presence.
>
> >> I'm not aware of any hardcore Theists leaving the possibility open
> >> that God might not exist ; isn't then " Atheist "as you define it a
> >> misnomer of sorts, if you leave the possibility open then you doubt
> >> somewhat, which makes you someone who doesn't know, rather than
> >> someone who believes a negative.
>
> > Here are some definitions that might clarify the concepts:
>
> > A- / theism - a position on the belief in deities
>
> Bullshit.
>
> A-theism = the absence of theism. ipso facto.
Maybe my notation wasn't clear. I meant it like this:
Atheism and Theism - positions on the belief in deities
And yes I know the "A" signifies the absence of the rest of the word
but that doesn't invalidate my statement. Written out fully it was
meant like this:
Theism - belief in one or more deities
Atheism - without belief in one or more deities
Yes both are positions.
> > A- / gnosticism - a position on the belief of the possibility of
> > proving or disproving a claim
>
> Bullshit.
>
> A-gnosticism = the absence of gnosticism. ipso facto
See the same as A- / theism explanation as above.
> Your absurd "definitions" make as much sense
> a claiming that "bald" is a position on hair.
>
> > Theist - Believer in one or more deities
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Deist is a believer in one or more deities.
>
> Theist is the belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the Universe
Wrong.
Theism is the belief in one or more gods.
Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods.
Monotheism is the belief in a single god.
Deism is belief in a god that caused the creation but has had no
direct or indirect influence on it from then on. It's just a subset of
Theism.
> > Atheist - Not a believer in one or more deities
>
> Wrong again.
>
> A-theist = one who doesn't believe in theism. ipso facto.
Wrong. I'm an atheist, but I belief theism exists. I just don't have
it.
You're mixing up definitions and meanings. Using your own parable
above, you've now just claimed that you "don't believe in haircolors"
instead of what you wanted to say: "without haircolor".
x = "a"
"a" = "not"
y = "theist"
"theist" = "a believer in one or more deities"
x + y = a + theist = not + a believer in one or more deities
> <snip rest of your definitional delusions>
Aside from your own error concerning deism / theism I see no flaw. The
reason I posted it is to clarify for J. Alessandro the differences in
the terms and show to what extent the different words go. Apparently
you need to read them again as well.
Kilmir
#1944
chazwin
> On 18 Ott, 19:39, "Reality_Check©" <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
> > > I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
> > > explain the Universe.
>
> > You're an a-theist.
>
> > You may still be a deist.
This is not "fair enough". You cannot be an atheist and a deist. A
deist is a category of theist.
David Schwartz
> No, I'm not.
> That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
> I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
> explain the Universe. And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
> concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
Actually, if you really believe that you don't understand the concept
'Deity', you're a strong atheist. It is impossible for anything that
exists to correspond to a concept that is not understood. Just like
there can't really be a 'spengfi', since nobody knows what 'spengfi'
means.
Just like I can say "I am sure there are no pennies in my pocket"
without having to worry that at some future point "pennies" might mean
"oxygen molecules", you can say that there cannot possibly be an
deities without having to worry that you might at some future point
change the concept to which the word "deity" refers.
When one uses a word, all that matters is what one means by it now.
Future changes in the meanings of words or concepts cannot make a
statement uttered today change from true to false or false to true,
unless the statement is about the content of that word or concept.
DS
Alessandro J.
> This is not "fair enough". You cannot be an atheist and a deist. A
> deist is a category of theist.
Fair enough. According to *your* definition of the matter I cannot be
both an atheist and a deist.
As someone said in this thread, this is really all about semantics,
and everyone and his dog seem to have somewhat differing definitions,
mostly overlapping in places, but with personal shades and
specifications for what *they* mean.
I'm not here to win an argument, I'm here to sort this mess out :
turns out i'm making the bundle more inextricable for myself. Life
sucks.
Alessandro J.
> On Oct 16, 1:23 pm, "Alessandro J." <pyr...@bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> > No, I'm not.
> > That I'm strongly skeptical of all forms of organised religion that
> > I'm aware of doesn't mean that I exclude the possibility of a Deity to
> > explain the Universe. And since both " Deity " and " Universe " are
> > concepts I don't totally understand, I remain open on the matter
>
> Actually, if you really believe that you don't understand the concept
> 'Deity', you're a strong atheist. It is impossible for anything that
> exists to correspond to a concept that is not understood. Just like
> there can't really be a 'spengfi', since nobody knows what 'spengfi'
> means.
Much as when I say I don't understand the universe, I don't understand
God : sure , I can speculate about its basic modes, but true knowledge
is complete, which I don't have. Maybe I should formulate " completely
understand " .
I don't understand womanhood. That I experience it, that I can
sometime divine it's inner workings, that I've learnt to anticipate
some of it's most erratic manifestations, means I don't understand it,
but I can still believe in it ; infact, I take it as fact.
Ricky Gervais put it quite well when, playing out the God charachter
talking to mankind about creation in his stand up routine, said : "
I'm not going to tell you, I have a massive brain, and yours is so
small, you wouldn't understand. But trust me, I did it ". That's what
God is to me, a bit like a Joker Card, you play it when your common
sense ( or your deep scientific knowledge acquired through years of
study ) is insufficient to deal with the paradoxes of the universe,
particularly regarding creation..
> Just like I can say "I am sure there are no pennies in my pocket"
> without having to worry that at some future point "pennies" might mean
> "oxygen molecules", you can say that there cannot possibly be an
> deities without having to worry that you might at some future point
> change the concept to which the word "deity" refers.
An interesting point in the wiki entry for " atheist " is that its
meaning has indeed changed since its original inception.
> When one uses a word, all that matters is what one means by it now.
> Future changes in the meanings of words or concepts cannot make a
> statement uttered today change from true to false or false to true,
> unless the statement is about the content of that word or concept.
I think this has more to do with how we use language in a subjective
manner, this whole atheist / deist / theist debate being a case in
point.
Errol
> Errol wrote:
> lots of imbecilic grunting snipped
> > I am proud to be agnostic. Whether this universe was created initially
> > by some kind of god or not can never be proven either way.
>
> And what evidence/proof do you have for such a preposterous statement?
>
Wow your spell checker has preposterous defined?
You are obviously too imbecilic to understand anything more advanced
than grunt... grunt...duh...what's that stuff dripping out my
arse.....mmm tastes like trailer trash shit
Maybe you have some proof then either way, or dimply do not
understand the implications of your own ravings?
> > Personally it doesn't bother me if it was or wasn't. Unlike flying pasta
> > monsters
> > and tooth faiires, that have no basis for existance,
>
> Prove it you ignorant imbecile.
So now you believe in tooth fairies?
ya all musta fukked summa dem rounda corna frum yor trailer, heh
trailer trash shit. Hey bubba cumma lookat dis toof fairie. No rc, isa
fukin da spaggetti monsta
>
> > the basis for
> > existance of a creator is the fact that cosmology supposes the
> > universe flashed into existance from nowherre
>
> As opposed to some invisible "creator" flashing into existance from nowhere,
> eh?
>
While he was 'flashing" a small bit of turd fell from his butt during
a particularly vigorous scratching. That turd grew up to be you and
your retard family
You don't have enough intelligence or imagination to think outside of
your trailer, as is evidenced by your low iq repetitive grunting
insults.
> > (I keep these
> > explanations as simple as possible so that you can follow them without
> > excessive wrinkling of your cro-magnon brow). A creator is a good
> > story for humans to get their head arounds something out of nothing.
>
> You're an imbecile, you deserve to be "agnostic", enjoy your ignorance.
I might be ignorant but you suffer from congenital, bred to the bone,
trailer trash imbecilism.
Reality_CheckŠ
Nope.
> Theism is the belief in one or more gods.
No, that's Deism.
> Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods.
> Monotheism is the belief in a single god.
>
> Deism is belief in a god that caused the creation but has had no
> direct or indirect influence on it from then on.
Yep.
> It's just a subset of Theism.
Theism requires that the Deist god also takes a personal
interest in humans and is a hands-on manipulator of the universe,
post-creation.
>
>>> Atheist - Not a believer in one or more deities
>>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> A-theist = one who doesn't believe in theism. ipso facto.
>
> Wrong. I'm an atheist, but I belief theism exists.
Do you believe in the elements of Theism?
> I just don't have
> it.
> You're mixing up definitions and meanings.
No, it is you who conflates the meanings and separation
of Deist and Theist.
>
>> <snip rest of your definitional delusions>
>
> Aside from your own error concerning deism / theism I see no flaw.
That you are blinded by your own errors comes as no surprise.
> The reason I posted it is to clarify for J. Alessandro the differences in
> the terms and show to what extent the different words go. Apparently
> you need to read them again as well.
Get back to us when you comprehend the distinction between
Deism and Theism and can use them properly in a coherent argument.
Kilmir
> Kilmir wrote:
Hindus are theists. Polytheists to be specific.
Christians are theists. Monotheists to be specific.
As stated further along in the post, only in the context of deism vs
theism is a singular god assumed with theism.
> > Theism is the belief in one or more gods.
>
> No, that's Deism.
Looking up definitions I see where the discrepancy comes from:
(taken from online dictionaries)
the⋅ism
–noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe,
without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
I've mostly viewed theism from the standpoint as an atheist thus I
tended to use the one or multiple gods meaning as the sole
definition.
Your interpretation of deism vs theism is still wrong though. The
distinguishing difference between those two is that deism rejects
revelation and theism accepts it. Both assume a single god entity.
de⋅ism
–noun
1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and
nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished
from theism ).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained
indifferent to it.
Do note that I didn't use deism, it's definition or the theist
relation to deism in my original post. Which means I was allowed to
use the theism vs atheism definition of theism because the whole post
was about theism and atheism.
Ergo, no error in the original post.
> > Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods.
> > Monotheism is the belief in a single god.
>
> > Deism is belief in a god that caused the creation but has had no
> > direct or indirect influence on it from then on.
>
> Yep.
>
> > It's just a subset of Theism.
>
> Theism requires that the Deist god also takes a personal
> interest in humans and is a hands-on manipulator of the universe,
> post-creation.
In the context of theism vs deism that is true, I stand corrected.
I wasn't aware that theism was used as an opposite of deism. If
looking at the theism description of atheism vs theism; deism would
just be a subset of theism, even just a subset of monotheism.
> >>> Atheist - Not a believer in one or more deities
>
> >> Wrong again.
>
> >> A-theist = one who doesn't believe in theism. ipso facto.
>
> > Wrong. I'm an atheist, but I belief theism exists.
>
> Do you believe in the elements of Theism?
No. But that's not what you said. It's nitpicking, but with statements
that can be used against us we need to be extra careful to be
perfectly clear.
Your statement meant, translated with your own definitions:
A-theist = one who doesn't believe in the belief in a god. ipso facto
> > I just don't have
> > it.
> > You're mixing up definitions and meanings.
>
> No, it is you who conflates the meanings and separation
> of Deist and Theist.
>
> >> <snip rest of your definitional delusions>
>
> > Aside from your own error concerning deism / theism I see no flaw.
>
> That you are blinded by your own errors comes as no surprise.
>
> > The reason I posted it is to clarify for J. Alessandro the differences in
> > the terms and show to what extent the different words go. Apparently
> > you need to read them again as well.
>
> Get back to us when you comprehend the distinction between
> Deism and Theism and can use them properly in a coherent argument.
Next time please don't drag deism in a discussion of atheism vs
theism. It just mixes up definitions that vary depending on contexts.