When Atheists Claim, "I lack belief in a god", what are they really saying?

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see,
if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. If the
majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
known and atheism will become extinct.

(by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")

[duke]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:40:23 -0400, Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com>
wrote:

>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

It's wrong. That only makes than agnostics because they clearly find the
evidence not convincing.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
A vote for obama is a vote for the end of
democracy in America as we know it. Let the
rolling thunder guide your decision at the
ballot box to put an end to Imperial Obama.
May God bless America.
********************************************

[Les]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:54:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:40:23 -0400, Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>
>It's wrong. That only makes than agnostics because they clearly find the
>evidence not convincing.

and of course when Duke says something is wrong then it is wrong.

All he has to do is wave his magic wand and say 'magicum asserticum'
and it is so.

In the same way when he says the moon is made of green cheese then it
is made of green cheese or that when he says catholicism is increasing
in number then it is increasing in number.

Of course this only works within his magical realm not in the real
world.

It does not do to dwell in dreams
You tend to forget to live


Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010

[Mitchell Holman]

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k1j3aj$2bn$1@dont-
email.me:

>
> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
> serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
> are exposing them.

What problems are those?

> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
> world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
> Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position.

A shared delusion is still a delusion.

Is astrology real just because millions
believe in it?

> If the
> majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
> examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to >
defend
> their position.

What position do atheists have to defend?

> This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
> more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms.

Theists have dominated the landscape for centuries,
but when atheists voice their opinion they are "attacking"
with "aggression"?

> There
> is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
> measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
> known and atheism will become extinct.

The numbers are not with you.





Atheism on the rise around the globe
Christian Science Monitor
August 15, 2012

Atheism is on the rise in the United States and
elsewhere while religiosity is declining, according
to a new worldwide poll. "The Global Index of
Religiosity and Atheism," conducted by WIN-Gallup
International headquartered in Switzerland, found
that the number of Americans who say they are
"religious" dropped from 73 percent in 2005 - when
the poll was last conducted - to 60 percent. Those
who said they were "convinced" atheists rose from
1 to 5 percent. And 33 percent of the people polled
said that they don't consider themselves as a
"religious person."

http://tinyurl.com/8fsgtkl

[WangoTango]

In article <k1j3aj$2bn$1...@dont-email.me>, calvin...@live.com says...

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
> on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue.
>

Well, you certainly don't talk for me.
I disagree with your position.
It *IS* an issue because so many people base their lives AND attempt to
make public policy based upon a belief system that has no basis in
reality. The IS an issue.
The cool thing about being an Atheist is we get to make up our own
minds, come to our own conclusions, and don't get together and create
dogma, like you have insinuated.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:49:41 -0400, WangoTango
<Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <k1j3aj$2bn$1...@dont-email.me>, calvin...@live.com says...
>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
>> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>> on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue.
>>
>Well, you certainly don't talk for me.
>I disagree with your position.
>It *IS* an issue because so many people base their lives AND attempt to
>make public policy based upon a belief system that has no basis in
>reality. The IS an issue.

The theists are the issue, not their hypothetical god.

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I disagree with your position.
> It *IS* an issue because so many people base their lives AND attempt to
> make public policy based upon a belief system that has no basis in
> reality. The IS an issue.
> The cool thing about being an Atheist is we get to make up our own
> minds, come to our own conclusions, and don't get together and create
> dogma, like you have insinuated.
>

And not scorning the three delightful children who result— who are
everything to me and who are my only chance of a human glimpse of a
second life, let alone an immortal one, I’ll tell you something: if I
was told to sacrifice them to prove my devotion to God, if I was told to
do what all monotheists are told to do and admire the man who said,
“Yes, I’ll gut my kid to show my love of God,” I’d say, “No, fuck you.”

[u4z]

Christopher A. Lee <chrisl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >Well, you certainly don't talk for me.
> >I disagree with your position.
> >It *IS* an issue because so many people base their lives AND attempt to
> >make public policy based upon a belief system that has no basis in
> >reality. The IS an issue.
>
> The theists are the issue, not their hypothetical god.

In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality.
For most believers, their religion represents an institution for
promoting perfect morality. In reality, though, religions are
responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or
histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer.
No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when
with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a
judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see,
if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and

are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the

world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more

Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. If the

majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend

their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There

is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
known and atheism will become extinct.

[Virgil]

In article <k1lprh$jeg$1...@dont-email.me>,

Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

And they should know better than you what they do or do not believe.

And of those who lack belief in any gods choose to interpret the "a" in
atheist as meaning the same as "non", you have not the power to change
them.
--

[WangoTango]

In article <b0qs38hvjegmpkjbm...@4ax.com>, chrislee95050
@comcast.net says...

Exactly, their mythical god has no power over reality, but it's deluded
followers sure can fuck things up for the rest of us.

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

[duke]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:10:44 +0100, Les <l...@sharnt.tell> wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:54:03 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:40:23 -0400, Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>>
>>It's wrong. That only makes than agnostics because they clearly find the
>>evidence not convincing.
>
>and of course when Duke says something is wrong then it is wrong.

Only when I call on my expert, and he's 100% correct.

>All he has to do is wave his magic wand and say 'magicum asserticum'
>and it is so.

Hmmmmmmmm, I may have to incorporate that word.

>In the same way when he says the moon is made of green cheese then it
>is made of green cheese or that when he says catholicism is increasing
>in number then it is increasing in number.

The US RCC has grown 10% in 10 years, the same rate as the general population.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:09:20 -0400
Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
> atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in
> God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other
> words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have
> no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them it is a
> non-issue. Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is
> that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral
> about it.

That's a philosophical assumption. Have you ever introduced your cat to
the idea of theism?

> You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been
> introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its
> possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But
> you cannot return to a lack of belief position, if lack of belief is
> defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning
> belief.

Why not? Have you not heard of the expression "out of sight, out of
mind?"

Here's an experiment for you: For the next 10 seconds, try not to think
of a black horse. Many people will attempt to use diversion tactics to
think of a white horse instead, or focus on something completely
different, and although you may have this idea of a black horse, a
white horse, or something else in your thoughts, you can do so without
forming any position regarding it. The same applies to deities.

> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to
> avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
> You see, if they say they have no position by saying they lack
> belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination,
> and they can quietly remain atheists.

An "atheistic position" is certainly possible, and could be defended
under pressure to be a theist, an anti-theist, or an agnostic, but the
"classification" of being an atheist requires no defense.

By assuming that all atheists "must be holding an atheistic position"
you are imposing a requirement where one is not required. It is fair
to ask if an atheist is either "positional" or "classificational," but
even there I really don't see much point in it since the reasons for
being an atheist, that preclude theism and anti-theism, are usually
personal reasons for which debate shouldn't automatically be expected
(and, to be fair, the same should generally apply to theists,
anti-theists, and agnostics who aren't actively seeking confrontation).

> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under
> more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its
> problems and are exposing them.

What problems does atheism have? (Note that I'm specifically asking
about atheism, and not anti-theism.)

I have noticed that religious groups sometimes do choose to attack
anti-theists and atheists. Although it makes sense that theists should
be entitled to challenge anti-theists, and even agnostics to a certain
degree (because of their contention that deities cannot be proven or
disproven, which obviously conflicts with both theism and anti-theism),
challenging atheism (because it's an absence of belief) always
impresses me as being more of a recruitment effort than anything else.

> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe
> in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more Christians are
> tackling atheism as an untenable position.

Note: That's the "bandwagon" logical fallacy.

> If the majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase
> in examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to
> defend their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems,
> are becoming more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its
> different forms.

Actually, that's just a misinterpretation of devensiveness against the
oppressive nature of many religions. As an atheist, I am not a slave
to the virtues promoted by many mainstream religions, which means that
I get to enjoy true freedom. This is frustrating for religious leaders
and so they make efforts to put atheists on the defensive while
applying peer pressure from many directions to join their religion.

Doing what's right is almost always the more difficult choice in life,
and if being an atheist is what's right for you then you'll undoubtedly
find that there will be much resistence from a religious reich. And if
you do pick a religion, there will be plenty of other religious reichs
who will put pressure on you accordingly (e.g., the extremist Muslims
flying aeroplanes into buildings, etc.).

Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc., is
imperative for a healthy society's longevity. When people are forced
to be slaves to religious virtues, they are effectively denied what is
in their nature, and this is a subtle form of stress that often results
in feelings of regret after a certain age (which is different for each
person depending on many factors mostly centred around personality).

I wrote about this concept of "absolute freedom" fairly recently:

The most effective tool of psychological enslavement is the imposing of
virtues and values, for one who completely lacks all virtues and values
is entirely free.
-- Fidem Turbare (May 21, 2012)

Note the clarity of that quotation (of my own words) in that I don't
single out religion -- this is because I'm not being anti-theistic,
rather I'm being impartial although I am very well aware of the fact
that religions often encompass sets of virtues and values. (Society in
general does too through laws, regulations, and even cultural
expectations to a fairly significant degree.)

> There is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and
> offensive measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the
> truth will be known and atheism will become extinct.
>
> (by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")

The conclusion that "atheism will become extinct" is a fallacy because
it's a prediction without a valid premise -- only conjecture and
assumption were actually provided.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
People are slaves to their virtues (as Friedrich Nietzsche pointed
out), and since religion has many virtues (some conflicting) that can
mean that being its slave is more severe (and even irrational).
-- Fidem Turbare (May 10, 2012)

[Father Haskell]

On Aug 28, 2:40 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:

(snip)

If you want to know what atheists think, why not ask
one instead of telling him? You have no more authority
on atheism than the pope has on performing a bris.

[Christopher A. Lee]

I've never understood the sheer, arrogant nastiness of theists when
they tell us what we "really" believe and dismiss correction.

[Dakota]

The Pope and all other Catholic clergymen should not be allowed to see
or touch children's 'private' parts.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:40:23 -0400, Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>
> It's wrong. That only makes than agnostics because they clearly find the
> evidence not convincing.

There's no evidence of evidence.

[Doug Freyburger]

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
>> atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in
>> God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.

The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have had
direct personal experiences of deity. Noone or almost no one has had
direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns. Being
experienced by many it is possible that deities exist, whatever exist
ends up meaning in that context. Maybe calling billions of people
delusional without evidence is your style but it's not my style. While
I'll read articles on the topic of pattericity I'll wait for better
evidence than "some people can't detect spritis therefore the ones who
can are delusional".

The second error in logic of that example - Being invisible, unicorns
can't be pink. As such they by definition can't exist. That sort of
unexistance by definition only applies to one type of deity of one
type of religion. An external creator diety is not a part of the
universe. The universe is everything that exists therefore by
definition an external creator deity doesn't exist. Only a few
religions have such a deity and the real weakness in that argument is
the semenatics not the experiences people have had of their deity. The
example fails at the point of generalization. Thor is within this
universe.

>> In other
>> words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have
>> no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them it is a
>> non-issue.

Until you observe the behavior of atheists. Actions speak louder than
words.

>> Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is
>> that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral
>> about it.
>
> That's a philosophical assumption.

Indeed. As you point out it suffers from the "do not think of black
horses" problem of your example. Until you observe the behavior of
atheists that is.

> Have you ever introduced your cat to the idea of theism?

No need. I've watched cats jump at spirits. Cats may not understand
abstract concepts like deity but they do jump at one when one shows up,
whether any of the humans present detect it or not.

>> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under
>> more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its
>> problems and are exposing them.

Which is more a problem of the Christians (and Muslims) that is not
present in almost any other religion.

> What problems does atheism have? (Note that I'm specifically asking
> about atheism, and not anti-theism.)

You've substituted agnostic/atheist and atheist/anti-theist here. Does
not change the meaning so I'll continue using agnostic and atheist.

The main problem of atheism is the observed behavior. When attacked by
members of two specific faiths the reaction is to attack members of all
faiths in retaliation. It suffers the same generalization error as the
invisible pink unicorn example above.

>> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe
>> in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more Christians are
>> tackling atheism as an untenable position.
>
> Note: That's the "bandwagon" logical fallacy.

There's an additional logical falacy in place, though - There exist
people who have direct personal experiences of deity. There exist
people who do not have direct personal experience of deity. Some of the
ones who have no direct personal experience of deity make the
anti-bandwagon falacy. As they don't have such experiences people who
do must be delusional.

>> If the majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase
>> in examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to
>> defend their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems,
>> are becoming more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its
>> different forms.
>
> Actually, that's just a misinterpretation of devensiveness against the
> oppressive nature of many religions.

Not many. Two perhaps a few more of the small population ones. Most
religions, starting with the second and third largest by population,
have no oppressive nature. Hindu doesn't care if you're an atheist. As
long as you're born to a Hindu family you're Hindu. As long as you're
not to a non-Hindu family you're not Hindu. Buddhism doesn't address
the topic of deity. Go on down the list of other faiths and nearly all
of them are like that.

> As an atheist, I am not a slave
> to the virtues promoted by many mainstream religions, which means that
> I get to enjoy true freedom. This is frustrating for religious leaders
> and so they make efforts to put atheists on the defensive while
> applying peer pressure from many directions to join their religion.

I write as a meber not a leader so I'll rephrase in my response - It is
frustrating for religious members of those many other faiths that they
get attacked along with the Christians and the Muslims. Observe the
behavior of the athiests.

> Doing what's right is almost always the more difficult choice in life,
> and if being an atheist is what's right for you then you'll undoubtedly
> find that there will be much resistence from a religious reich. And if
> you do pick a religion, there will be plenty of other religious reichs
> who will put pressure on you accordingly (e.g., the extremist Muslims
> flying aeroplanes into buildings, etc.).

And if you're a member of one of those small religions and you happen to
be near Darfur the rifles of both sides are pointed at you. It's still
only two faiths.

> Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc., is
> imperative for a healthy society's longevity.

And it tends to increase the religious membershep and fervor in the free
society.

> When people are forced
> to be slaves to religious virtues, they are effectively denied what is
> in their nature, and this is a subtle form of stress that often results
> in feelings of regret after a certain age (which is different for each
> person depending on many factors mostly centred around personality).

Which is probably why the legally theocratic nations of northern Europe
have so many beautiful but almost empty state supported churches and is
probably why societies dominated by fundies have such harshly oppressive
governments.

> I wrote about this concept of "absolute freedom" fairly recently:
>
> The most effective tool of psychological enslavement is the imposing of
> virtues and values, for one who completely lacks all virtues and values
> is entirely free.
> -- Fidem Turbare (May 21, 2012)
>
> Note the clarity of that quotation (of my own words) in that I don't
> single out religion -- this is because I'm not being anti-theistic,
> rather I'm being impartial although I am very well aware of the fact
> that religions often encompass sets of virtues and values. (Society in
> general does too through laws, regulations, and even cultural
> expectations to a fairly significant degree.)

To me cause and effect is feature of the universe. Ethics is cause and
effect writ large on human behavior (virtues). Morality is the current
cultural snap shot of the current interpretation of ethics (values). I
do not accept that virtues and values came from a creator deity because
I accept that my deities are in this unverse as I've met a few of
them. They are here and therefore they are subject to the same ethics I
am. They are not of the same culture as I am therefore they are subject
to a different set of morality than I am.

To me trying to break how the universe works is not the way to be free.
Trying to figure out how today's morality clashes with how the universe
works, that would be a part of freedom.

>> There is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and
>> offensive measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the
>> truth will be known and atheism will become extinct.
>>
>> (by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")
>
> The conclusion that "atheism will become extinct" is a fallacy because
> it's a prediction without a valid premise -- only conjecture and
> assumption were actually provided.

If deities are ever detected by instrumentation and therefore proved to
exist probably every existing religion will need to change to reflect
the observed reality. Of course then theology will be a form of
engineering not a form of religion. If ever. There's no guarantee it
will ever happen. Studies of patternicity are at least as likely to
provide proof going the opposite direction. Not that most religions
will fall because most don't depend on their deities existing.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k1r0q1$ta5$1...@dont-email.me>,

Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> > Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
> >> atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in
> >> God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>
> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have had
> direct personal experiences of deity.

And not one of them could come up with verifiable evidence of this.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way

they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have

no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief

on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this

may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced

to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a

judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see,
if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and

are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the

world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more

Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. If the

majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming

more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There

[Zacharias Mulletstein]

"Calvin Ramsey" <calvin...@live.com> wrote in message
news:k1r553$rca$1...@dont-email.me...

Athiesm will become extinct when the last athiest goes to hell. And I will
be especially cruel to this demon, and I will derive great power from his
suffering.

[Jenny6833A]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:50:42 PM UTC+2, Dakota wrote:

> The Pope and all other Catholic clergymen should not be allowed to see or touch children's 'private' parts.

What are 'private parts'?

Why are such parts private?

What does 'private' mean:
can't know that others have such parts?
can't see the outline of them?
can see much of them, but can't see the entire part?
can't touch the covered part of the part?
can't touch the uncovered part of the partially covered part?

:-)

Jenny
(who loves to dispute textile cultural silliness)

[Calvin Ramsey]

I know it's way beyond your capability to even understand what I'm about
to say, much less believe it's true, but I'll say it anyway, if only for
the sake of that one lone person who senses God tugging at his or her
heart.

So, please, whatever you do, do not think for one moment that I am
addressing you, Jeanne Douglas. I'm just using your post as a springboard.

================================================================

The "evidence" that Christians have is all internal, spiritual evidence.

"Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he
answered them, �The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be
observed, nor will they say, �Look, here it is!� or �There!� for behold,
the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.�
--Luke 17:20-21 (ESV)

None of it is empirical evidence.

"We look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are
unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that
are unseen are eternal."
--2 Corinthians 4:18 (ESV)

[Doug Freyburger]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> >> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
>> >> atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in
>> >> God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>
>> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have had
>> direct personal experiences of deity.
>
> And not one of them could come up with verifiable evidence of this.

That's only correct depending on exactly how you phrase it. I'll offer
an alternate phrasing below.

There are people who can and people who can't taste the hot in paprika.
I use sure surprised the first time I fed a stew to a friend with a lot
of Hungarian blood. Lesson learned. Just because *I* can't detect it
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

How many millennia went by before someone devised an instrument to
measure that chemical's presence? No one''s been able to create an
instrument to detect it so it must not exist! Not one of them could
come up with verifiable evidence. Until one day, Oops, there it is!
Those folks weren't delusional after all.

The situation with respect to spirits aka deities is just like the
situation was for the hotness of paprika for all those millennia until
the instrument to detect that chemical was invented. Some can detect
spirits, hotness in paprika. Some can't. One of the two mechanisms has
since been explained. One of the two mechanism has not yet been
explained.

Magnetism has the exact same story pattern. Some rock that always
points north? You're full of it. Until one day, oh look at that. And
eventually someone figured out how to make such a rock and now there are
plastic ones on every refrigerator door.

Blindness has the exact same story pattern. There are people in the
world who can detect light and people in the world who don't.
Eventually medicine started explaining why some don't.

So I'll offer an improved statement - Billions of people have direct
personal experience of deity. That's direct verifiable evidence because
you can go around polling people anywhere in the world. Billions of
people have no direct personal experience of deity. That's direct
verifiable evidence because you can go around polling people anywhere
in the world. What's lacking *in both directions* is a theoretical
model for why the other group has different experiences and any sort
of experimental instrumentation to detect that difference.

Thinking spirits do not exist is band wagon reasoning just like thinking
they don't is.

What's interesting is the degree of entrenchment by some on each side.
The existence of deity is not a make it or break it issue in most
religions. It can't be given the fact that many people never have any
experience of any spirit. Only a very small number of religions make it
a requirement yet athiests or anti-theists or whatever term is in
fashion this month blindly blast all faiths rather than just those. I
took almost enough anthropology courses in college to earn a minor in
it. To me this is far more fascinating than a good movie and some
popcorn. So I happen to be one of the detectors. Whatever, I've never
asked if Thor likes popcorn. Coffee then. It's an experience best also
shared with folks who don't detect spriits but who also see the issue as
I do.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <7017cf7d-62f0-49ef...@googlegroups.com>,

Are you the Jenny us4 is always talking about?

:-)

[Martin]

On 31/08/2012 21:00, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> The statement "I lack belief in a god"

You're being frigging boring now and spamming. FOAD

[duke]

I have it. Quntum physics.

[walksalone]

Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:k1r8fq$hp0$1@dont-
email.me:

> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
>>> >> atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief
in
>>> >> God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>>
>>> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have
had
>>> direct personal experiences of deity.
>>
>> And not one of them could come up with verifiable evidence of this.
>
> That's only correct depending on exactly how you phrase it. I'll offer
> an alternate phrasing below.
>
> There are people who can and people who can't taste the hot in paprika.
> I use sure surprised the first time I fed a stew to a friend with a lot
> of Hungarian blood. Lesson learned. Just because *I* can't detect it
> doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

& to thoase without the exquiset sense of smell & taste, does it exist.
Why yes, just not for them. But then, you may be aware of that.

snip

> So I'll offer an improved statement - Billions of people have direct
> personal experience of deity. That's direct verifiable evidence
because

Argument from personal gullibility, there is one we've never seen before.
Or has any other atheist seen this hand waveing before? & please, let's
ot answer all at once.

> you can go around polling people anywhere in the world. Billions of
> people have no direct personal experience of deity. That's direct
> verifiable evidence because you can go around polling people anywhere
> in the world. What's lacking *in both directions* is a theoretical
> model for why the other group has different experiences and any sort
> of experimental instrumentation to detect that difference.

When the gods leave the realm of the supernatural, then they may be
subject to real time testing & evidence for them. Till then, no one home
when you knock.

> Thinking spirits do not exist is band wagon reasoning just like
thinking
> they don't is.

Tinking spirits, is that anything like a revnant? Woupd you care to give
your audience a definition of a god, & then pick out the ones that it
applies to. Here, I'll provide a short list, just for you.

Abgaledit Aglibol Allat Almaqah Amn Anbay A'ra Arsu Asar Asira
Atarsamain Azizos Baltis
Basamum Datin Haubas Haukim Hilal Hubal Kahilan Malakbel Manat Mandah
Marnas Nahi
Orotalt Qaynan Qos Quzah Ruda Salm of Mahram Sams Singla Ta'lab Theandros
Anat
Anat Arsay Aserah Aserah Astarte Athirat Attar Baal Malage Baal Samin
Baal
Sapon Baal Bethel Dagan Dagan Derceto �l-eb Elkunirsa Esmun Hadad
Haurun Il
Kades Melqart Mikal Mot Mot Myrrrha Pidray Pidray Pothos Resep(A)mukal
Resep(A)mukal
Sapas Tanit Tanit Adam Beliyya'al' Abalim Abba Amona Abba Adonaiel
Akatriel-Yah
Alukah Anafiel Archon Asherah Asmodeus Baal-Karmelos Bat Kol Belial
Bethel Chashmal
Chayyot Ben Elohim El Dumiel Elohim Elom Ibbur Elim Lotan Mazikeen Memra
Nibhaz
Piznai Rahav Shabbat Hamalka Arom Bagisht Dagan Disani Dogumrik Duzhi
Gish Gujo
Immat Imra Indr Kshumai Lumang Maramalik Mon Munjem Malik Munjem Malik
Nirmali Nong
Panao Paneu Poluknalai Prakde Sanju Shomde Sudrem Zhiwud Agas Ahriman
Ahura Mazda
Ahurani(Ardi Sura Ahurani) Airyaman Allatum(Ellat)Ameretat Anahita
Anaitis Angra Mainyu
Apam Napat Asmodaios(Asmodeus)Asuras Azi Dahaka
(Azhdahak,Azdahak,AzhiDahaka)
Baga Bahram Burijas(Buriyas) Cautes and Cautopates Daena Daevas Dahhak
Dena Devas Diwe
Fravashis Fravasi Gandarewa Gayomart Geus Tasan Geus Urvan Hvar Indar
Izha Jamshid Mah Manu
Mao Mithra Neriosang Peris Rapithwin Rashnu(Rasnu) Senmurw Spenta Armaiti
Spenta Mainyu(Spenak Meno)
Sraosha(Sraosa,Sros) Thunaupa Tishtriya(Tistrya)Vata(Vayu)Vata
Verethragna(Bairam) Verethragna
Yazata Yima Zam Zurvan(Zervan,Zrvan)Attis Kybele Men Papas Priapos
Sabzios Sangarios[Phyrgian]

You may notice, these are from the same regions as the revealed gods of
the desert. Now which gods are you talikiong about, & if you can quite
posturing long enough, where is your objective evidence. Personal
gullibility, holy writs, art work, & pretensions of knowledge don't
qualify.

> What's interesting is the degree of entrenchment by some on each side.
> The existence of deity is not a make it or break it issue in most
> religions. It can't be given the fact that many people never have any
> experience of any spirit. Only a very small number of religions make
it
> a requirement yet athiests or anti-theists or whatever term is in
> fashion this month blindly blast all faiths rather than just those. I

Erm, I take it you are on a roll. I don't blast any thjeist that has the
good manners to keep their aberations to themselves. Those that insist I
pay attention to them are on their own. Now, which brand are you
pimping, or is the artsy fartsy there is a god� so there variety.

> took almost enough anthropology courses in college to earn a minor in
> it. To me this is far more fascinating than a good movie and some
> popcorn. So I happen to be one of the detectors. Whatever, I've never
> asked if Thor likes popcorn. Coffee then. It's an experience best
also
> shared with folks who don't detect spriits but who also see the issue
as
> I do.

When you have a captive audience, or an audience of one, you are sure to
impress yourseslf. The atheist newsgroup is not such an audience.

walksalone who never did understand why people fear death so much. Now
dieng, that can be rough. But as the Koreans phrase it, the long sleep,
whats to fear other than it being the end of a probably rather ordinary
life. By all the gods that never were, humans are biologically redundent
at the age of 40, & start falling apart. & most of us do not want to go,
but go we will & it will be our turn for the long sleep.
The weird part, if we were good people, we will be remebered asd such by
the only people that mattered to us, & that ain't a bad legacy for anyone
to leave behind.

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and,
pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there
are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup,
and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted
Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup,"
said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you
don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup
and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this
empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his
thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head
with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the
emptiness'."

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:43:45 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:40:23 -0400, Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>>> It's wrong. That only makes than agnostics because they clearly find the
>>> evidence not convincing.
>> There's no evidence of evidence.
>
> I have it. Quntum physics.

That's evidence that creation is a crapshoot. Einstein didn't like it.

[Smiler]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:46:26 +0000, Doug Freyburger wrote:

> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
>>> atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in
>>> God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>
> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have had
> direct personal experiences of deity.

Prove it.

> Noone or almost no one has had
> direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns.

Agian, prove it.

> Being experienced by many it is possible that deities exist, whatever
> exist ends up meaning in that context.

Many having been abducted by ETs it is possible that ETs exist, whatever

exist ends up meaning in that context.

> Maybe calling billions of people delusional without
> evidence is your style but it's not my style. While I'll read articles on
> the topic of pattericity I'll wait for better evidence than "some people
> can't detect spritis therefore the ones who can are delusional".

First show evidence for 'spirits'. Beliefs are NOT evidence.

>
> The second error in logic of that example - Being invisible, unicorns
> can't be pink.

That's not what her believers believe :-)

> As such they by definition can't exist. That sort of
> unexistance by definition only applies to one type of deity of one type of
> religion.

Nope. It applies to most religions. The god of the bible, by definition,
is equally non-existent.

> An external creator diety is not a part of the universe. The
> universe is everything that exists therefore by definition an external
> creator deity doesn't exist. Only a few religions have such a deity and
> the real weakness in that argument is the semenatics not the experiences
> people have had of their deity. The example fails at the point of
> generalization. Thor is within this universe.

But the god of the bible WAS in this universe until manned flight and
space exploration showed he wasn't. He then suddenly retreated to outside
the universe. How convenient?

>>> In other
>>> words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no
>>> belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them it is a
>>> non-issue.
>
> Until you observe the behavior of atheists.

What 'behaviour' is that?

> Actions speak louder than words.
>
>>> Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you
>>> are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it.
>>
>> That's a philosophical assumption.
>
> Indeed. As you point out it suffers from the "do not think of black
> horses" problem of your example. Until you observe the behavior of
> atheists that is.

What 'behaviour' is that?

>
>> Have you ever introduced your cat to the idea of theism?
>
> No need. I've watched cats jump at spirits. Cats may not understand
> abstract concepts like deity but they do jump at one when one shows up,
> whether any of the humans present detect it or not.

Your evidence that cats jump at 'spirits' is?

>
>>> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under
>>> more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its
>>> problems and are exposing them.
>
> Which is more a problem of the Christians (and Muslims) that is not
> present in almost any other religion.
>
>> What problems does atheism have? (Note that I'm specifically asking
>> about atheism, and not anti-theism.)
>
> You've substituted agnostic/atheist and atheist/anti-theist here. Does
> not change the meaning so I'll continue using agnostic and atheist.
>
> The main problem of atheism is the observed behavior. When attacked by
> members of two specific faiths the reaction is to attack members of all
> faiths in retaliation.

When people attack us, are we not entitled to respond?

> It suffers the same generalization error as the invisible pink unicorn
> example above.

Most faiths cannot evidence their supposed god(s).
They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

>
>>> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe in
>>> God (or a god) than don't, and more and more Christians are tackling
>>> atheism as an untenable position.
>>
>> Note: That's the "bandwagon" logical fallacy.
>
> There's an additional logical falacy in place, though - There exist
> people who have direct personal experiences of deity.

How do you tell the difference between someone who 'has direct personal
experiences of deity' and a schizophrenic who hears voices in their head?

> There exist people who do not have direct personal experience of deity.

They're called unbelievers or atheists.

> Some of the ones who have no direct personal experience of deity make the
> anti-bandwagon falacy. As they don't have such experiences people who
> do must be delusional.

Prove that they aren't.

>
>>> If the majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase
>>> in examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to
>>> defend their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are
>>> becoming more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different
>>> forms.
>>
>> Actually, that's just a misinterpretation of devensiveness against the
>> oppressive nature of many religions.
>
> Not many. Two perhaps a few more of the small population ones. Most
> religions, starting with the second and third largest by population,
> have no oppressive nature. Hindu doesn't care if you're an atheist.

You've obviously not read Janhu's posts.

> As long as you're born to a Hindu family you're Hindu. As long as
> you're not to a non-Hindu family you're not Hindu. Buddhism doesn't
> address the topic of deity. Go on down the list of other faiths and
> nearly all of them are like that.
>
>> As an atheist, I am not a slave
>> to the virtues promoted by many mainstream religions, which means that
>> I get to enjoy true freedom. This is frustrating for religious leaders
>> and so they make efforts to put atheists on the defensive while
>> applying peer pressure from many directions to join their religion.
>
> I write as a meber not a leader so I'll rephrase in my response - It is
> frustrating for religious members of those many other faiths that they
> get attacked along with the Christians and the Muslims. Observe the
> behavior of the athiests.

Observe the behaviour of Janhu (a Hindu), Joe Bruno (a Jew) and people of
other faiths that come here to attack us.

>
>> Doing what's right is almost always the more difficult choice in life,
>> and if being an atheist is what's right for you then you'll undoubtedly
>> find that there will be much resistence from a religious reich. And if
>> you do pick a religion, there will be plenty of other religious reichs
>> who will put pressure on you accordingly (e.g., the extremist Muslims
>> flying aeroplanes into buildings, etc.).
>
> And if you're a member of one of those small religions and you happen to
> be near Darfur the rifles of both sides are pointed at you. It's still
> only two faiths.

And if you're on the border between Israel and the Gaza strip, or were in
Belfast in the 1970's, or are on the border between India and Pakistan,
it's still only two faiths, but different ones in each case.

>
>> Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc., is
>> imperative for a healthy society's longevity.
>
> And it tends to increase the religious membershep and fervor in the free
> society.

Bullshit. Have not the Irish Catholics been leaving their church in droves
because of free choice? Have not the Methodist Chapels in Wales been
closing at the rate of one a week because of the free choice of their
members to leave the church?

As will atheism.

> Of course then theology will be a form of
> engineering not a form of religion. If ever. There's no guarantee it
> will ever happen.

Just the reverse. I guarantee that it will never happen.

> Studies of patternicity are at least as likely to
> provide proof going the opposite direction. Not that most religions
> will fall because most don't depend on their deities existing.

They depend only on the _belief_ that their deity exists. No evidence is
ever forthcoming, as they have none.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 8/31/2012 10:27 PM, Smiler wrote:

[snip]

> First show evidence for 'spirits'. Beliefs are NOT evidence.

The evidence shows that evidently you're not meant (predestined) to know
what the evidence for God is. If you were, you wouldn't need to ask.

"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills."
--Romans 9:18 (ESV)


You're in the "reject pile" of humanity.

"Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
--Romans 9:21 (ESV)

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:00:41 -0400
Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2012 10:27 PM, Smiler wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> First show evidence for 'spirits'. Beliefs are NOT evidence.
>
> The evidence shows that evidently you're not meant (predestined) to
> know what the evidence for God is. If you were, you wouldn't need to
> ask.

That's a cop-out.

> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever
> he wills."
> --Romans 9:18 (ESV)

That seems arbitrary and unfair because the criteria isn't defined.

> You're in the "reject pile" of humanity.

[snip - religious prosthelytizing]

Oh, how nice of you to visit ... hang on, why are you in this same pile?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Doug Freyburger]

Smiler wrote:

> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have had
>> direct personal experiences of deity.
>
> Prove it.

Ask them.

>> Noone or almost no one has had
>> direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns.
>
> Agian, prove it.

Ask the person who made it up as an example of failed logic. The
example is a deliberate fiction and makes the leap that those who had
had direct personal experiences of deity also report their experiences
are making up deliberate fictions.

>> As such they by definition can't exist. That sort of
>> unexistance by definition only applies to one type of deity of one type of
>> religion.
>
> Nope. It applies to most religions. The god of the bible, by definition,
> is equally non-existent.

Incorrect. Learn something about other religions some time. As with
the deliberate fiction model of the unicorns you're uses an incorrect
conclusion as one of the basis of your logical.

>> An external creator diety is not a part of the universe. The
>> universe is everything that exists therefore by definition an external
>> creator deity doesn't exist. Only a few religions have such a deity and
>> the real weakness in that argument is the semenatics not the experiences
>> people have had of their deity. The example fails at the point of
>> generalization. Thor is within this universe.
>
> But the god of the bible WAS in this universe until manned flight and
> space exploration showed he wasn't. He then suddenly retreated to outside
> the universe. How convenient?

Pantheism. People have tried to justify it with Christianity a lot. if
Christianity in general were to adopt it it would resolve some of their
problems.

>> Until you observe the behavior of atheists.
>
> What 'behaviour' is that?

There you go.

>>> Have you ever introduced your cat to the idea of theism?
>
>> No need. I've watched cats jump at spirits. Cats may not understand
>> abstract concepts like deity but they do jump at one when one shows up,
>> whether any of the humans present detect it or not.
>
> Your evidence that cats jump at 'spirits' is?

Have you ever watched cats?

>> The main problem of atheism is the observed behavior. When attacked by
>> members of two specific faiths the reaction is to attack members of all
>> faiths in retaliation.
>
> When people attack us, are we not entitled to respond?

Here I am observing the behavior.

>> It suffers the same generalization error as the invisible pink unicorn
>> example above.
>
> Most faiths cannot evidence their supposed god(s).
> They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

Which really matters to the ones that claim other faiths are wrong.

>>>> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe in
>>>> God (or a god) than don't, and more and more Christians are tackling
>>>> atheism as an untenable position.
>
>>> Note: That's the "bandwagon" logical fallacy.
>
>> There's an additional logical falacy in place, though - There exist
>> people who have direct personal experiences of deity.
>
> How do you tell the difference between someone who 'has direct personal
> experiences of deity' and a schizophrenic who hears voices in their head?

By observing their behavior.

>> There exist people who do not have direct personal experience of deity.
>
> They're called unbelievers or atheists.

Not always. There is the issue of faith. For someone who has had
direct personal experience of deity the existance issue is one of
observation not faith. For people who have never had direct personal
experience of deity the existance issue is one of faith. There exist
people who take that step of faith. This set reduces the population of
the unbelievers or atheists. There will also be some who have had
direct personal experience of deity and rejected it deciding to remain
unbelievers or atheists.

>> And if you're a member of one of those small religions and you happen to
>> be near Darfur the rifles of both sides are pointed at you. It's still
>> only two faiths.
>
> And if you're on the border between Israel and the Gaza strip, or were in
> Belfast in the 1970's, or are on the border between India and Pakistan,
> it's still only two faiths, but different ones in each case.

The Druze do indeed get targetted by both sides. A lot of Sieks were
wiped out by Indira Gandhi's regime and her assassination was in
revenge. Minority religions in Eire? Not enough recontructionist
Druids or Asatru to be targetted yet. The middle east example expands it
to three all still of the JCISMR family.

>>> Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc., is
>>> imperative for a healthy society's longevity.
>
>> And it tends to increase the religious membershep and fervor in the free
>> society.
>
> Bullshit.

So you've never been to the US. Gotcha.

> Have not the Irish Catholics been leaving their church in droves
> because of free choice?

Legally Catholic state for centuries.

> Have not the Methodist Chapels in Wales been
> closing at the rate of one a week because of the free choice of their
> members to leave the church?

Legally anglican state for centuries.

In both cases as I wrote:

>> Which is probably why the legally theocratic nations of northern Europe
>> have so many beautiful but almost empty state supported churches and is
>> probably why societies dominated by fundies have such harshly oppressive
>> governments.

> ...

>> Of course then theology will be a form of
>> engineering not a form of religion. If ever. There's no guarantee it
>> will ever happen.
>
> Just the reverse. I guarantee that it will never happen.

I guarantee that no one will ever explain why certain rocks spin to face
north when floated. Oops, too late one day someone explained that.

>> Studies of patternicity are at least as likely to
>> provide proof going the opposite direction. Not that most religions
>> will fall because most don't depend on their deities existing.
>
> They depend only on the _belief_ that their deity exists. No evidence is
> ever forthcoming, as they have none.

Nice misunderstanding of my statement. Very Christian of you.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:46:59 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Smiler wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have had
>>> direct personal experiences of deity.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>Ask them.

Why, moron? You made the claim.

Now you're dishonestly weaseling out of it.

>>> Noone or almost no one has had
>>> direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns.
>>
>> Agian, prove it.
>
>Ask the person who made it up as an example of failed logic. The
>example is a deliberate fiction and makes the leap that those who had
>had direct personal experiences of deity also report their experiences
>are making up deliberate fictions.

Can't stop lying, can you?

Every time you make up "reasons" to attribute to others rather than
address the point.

>>> As such they by definition can't exist. That sort of
>>> unexistance by definition only applies to one type of deity of one type of
>>> religion.
>>
>> Nope. It applies to most religions. The god of the bible, by definition,
>> is equally non-existent.
>
>Incorrect. Learn something about other religions some time. As with
>the deliberate fiction model of the unicorns you're uses an incorrect
>conclusion as one of the basis of your logical.

Why can't you stop lying?

>>> An external creator diety is not a part of the universe. The
>>> universe is everything that exists therefore by definition an external
>>> creator deity doesn't exist. Only a few religions have such a deity and
>>> the real weakness in that argument is the semenatics not the experiences
>>> people have had of their deity. The example fails at the point of
>>> generalization. Thor is within this universe.
>>
>> But the god of the bible WAS in this universe until manned flight and
>> space exploration showed he wasn't. He then suddenly retreated to outside
>> the universe. How convenient?
>
>Pantheism. People have tried to justify it with Christianity a lot. if
>Christianity in general were to adopt it it would resolve some of their
>problems.

If you would stop inventing non-existent "motives" for atheists you
would resolve some of your problems.

[Immortalist]

On Aug 30, 10:54 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:09:20 -0400
>

> Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> > The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
> > atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in
> > God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.  In other
> > words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have
> > no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God.  To them it is a
> > non-issue.  Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is
> > that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral
> > about it.
>
> That's a philosophical assumption.  Have you ever introduced your cat to
> the idea of theism?
>
> > You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been
> > introduced to you.  You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its
> > possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But
> > you cannot return to a lack of belief position, if lack of belief is
> > defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning
> > belief.
>
> Why not?  Have you not heard of the expression "out of sight, out of
> mind?"
>

The issue is "determinability" or in science what is called
falsifiability; whether or not it is possible to show something is
true or false: is it testable.

Think of flipping a coin with two possible outcomes; heads or tails.
If someone says it will land on heads when flipped, someone else might
say I have no belief on the issue of whether it is true that it will
land on heads or not because there is a 50 50 chance it will either
land on heads or tails. Not determinable and not true do not mean the
same thing.

This is why every cult and its sister hates Kant because he showed a
way to say this and gave it a name; antinomy.

Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views.

They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.

An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:46:59 +0000 (UTC)

Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Smiler wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >
> >> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have
> >> had direct personal experiences of deity.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Ask them.

Does this mean that you don't believe them either?

> >> Noone or almost no one has had
> >> direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns.
> >
> > Agian, prove it.
>
> Ask the person who made it up as an example of failed logic. The
> example is a deliberate fiction and makes the leap that those who had
> had direct personal experiences of deity also report their experiences
> are making up deliberate fictions.

Just in case you were referring to me (although you might very well have
been referring to Calvin Ramsey), the example I provided was about
imagining a black horse and then, for 10 seconds, trying not to think
about that black horse. My point was a logical one -- no position was
required to have this image of a black horse (or a white horse, or
something else) in one's thoughts; it certainly wasn't a conclusion
like the one you just described.

> >> As such they by definition can't exist. That sort of
> >> unexistance by definition only applies to one type of deity of one
> >> type of religion.
> >
> > Nope. It applies to most religions. The god of the bible, by
> > definition, is equally non-existent.
>
> Incorrect. Learn something about other religions some time. As with
> the deliberate fiction model of the unicorns you're uses an incorrect
> conclusion as one of the basis of your logical.

"Deities and supernatural agents" seem to be present in most religions.

> >> An external creator diety is not a part of the universe. The
> >> universe is everything that exists therefore by definition an
> >> external creator deity doesn't exist. Only a few religions have
> >> such a deity and the real weakness in that argument is the
> >> semenatics not the experiences people have had of their deity. The
> >> example fails at the point of generalization. Thor is within this
> >> universe.
> >
> > But the god of the bible WAS in this universe until manned flight
> > and space exploration showed he wasn't. He then suddenly retreated
> > to outside the universe. How convenient?
>
> Pantheism. People have tried to justify it with Christianity a lot.
> if Christianity in general were to adopt it it would resolve some of
> their problems.

I suspect the Christians would be far more likely to re-interpret their
doctrine to make everything fit -- creationism certainly appears to be
one such attempt.

> >> Until you observe the behavior of atheists.
> >
> > What 'behaviour' is that?
>
> There you go.

Please clarify what you mean.

> >>> Have you ever introduced your cat to the idea of theism?
> >>
> >> No need. I've watched cats jump at spirits. Cats may not
> >> understand abstract concepts like deity but they do jump at one
> >> when one shows up, whether any of the humans present detect it or
> >> not.
> >
> > Your evidence that cats jump at 'spirits' is?
>
> Have you ever watched cats?

I've watched many cats on many occasions, both with and without catnip
in the equation, and so far none has ever said anything about spirits.

How did you conclude that cats "jump at spirits?"

> >> The main problem of atheism is the observed behavior. When
> >> attacked by members of two specific faiths the reaction is to
> >> attack members of all faiths in retaliation.
> >
> > When people attack us, are we not entitled to respond?
>
> Here I am observing the behavior.

You're observing a mixture of anti-theistic behaviour and defensive
behaviour. When someone tries to push their corrupt moral values on
others, some will merely reject and/or challenge them (which is
atheistic because it's not actually an attack), while others will take
it much further and respond with a much stronger push in the form of an
actual attack (which can be viewed as anti-theistic).

The key is identifying and understanding the difference between these
two things, which I've found that most extreme religious
right-wing-nuts regularly fail to do; it's as if they're seeing the
world as one big "black and white" bifurcation that leads them to
illogically conclude consistently that everyone who isn't with them is
automatically against them.

> >> It suffers the same generalization error as the invisible pink
> >> unicorn example above.
> >
> > Most faiths cannot evidence their supposed god(s).
> > They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
>
> Which really matters to the ones that claim other faiths are wrong.

That claim is anti-theistic, by the way. Of course, the claim that
"they can't all be right" obviously has credibility because it's logical
due to the fact that many religions also make the claim that there can
only be one deity - theirs.

> >>>> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who
> >>>> believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
> >>>> Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position.
> >
> >>> Note: That's the "bandwagon" logical fallacy.
> >
> >> There's an additional logical falacy in place, though - There exist
> >> people who have direct personal experiences of deity.
> >
> > How do you tell the difference between someone who 'has direct
> > personal experiences of deity' and a schizophrenic who hears voices
> > in their head?
>
> By observing their behavior.

What behaviour differentiates these two?

In your opinion, is it also possible someone who "has personal
experiences of deity" to also be schizophrenic? If so, what would be
the behaviour exhibited by such a person?

> >> There exist people who do not have direct personal experience of
> >> deity.
> >
> > They're called unbelievers or atheists.
>
> Not always. There is the issue of faith. For someone who has had
> direct personal experience of deity the existance issue is one of
> observation not faith. For people who have never had direct personal
> experience of deity the existance issue is one of faith. There exist
> people who take that step of faith. This set reduces the population
> of the unbelievers or atheists. There will also be some who have had
> direct personal experience of deity and rejected it deciding to remain
> unbelievers or atheists.

Atheism can be the result of a choice, or just be because no choice was
ever made. In the end, the "absence of belief in deities and
supernatural agents" is what defines an atheist, and the reason for
this doesn't matter for the purposes of the definition.

> >> And if you're a member of one of those small religions and you
> >> happen to be near Darfur the rifles of both sides are pointed at
> >> you. It's still only two faiths.
> >
> > And if you're on the border between Israel and the Gaza strip, or
> > were in Belfast in the 1970's, or are on the border between India
> > and Pakistan, it's still only two faiths, but different ones in
> > each case.
>
> The Druze do indeed get targetted by both sides. A lot of Sieks were
> wiped out by Indira Gandhi's regime and her assassination was in
> revenge. Minority religions in Eire? Not enough recontructionist
> Druids or Asatru to be targetted yet. The middle east example expands
> it to three all still of the JCISMR family.

That's interesting.

> >>> Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc., is
> >>> imperative for a healthy society's longevity.
> >>
> >> And it tends to increase the religious membershep and fervor in
> >> the free society.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> So you've never been to the US. Gotcha.

Actually, religion seems to be very popular in the USA, but this has
more to do with childhood education. Of course, freedom of choice
taken to extremes can lead to chaos, so there are some standards that
are needed for a society to function properly -- laws, regulations,
minimum education requirements for children, etc. The exclusion of
skeptical thinking classes and the introduction of creationism in
public schools are dangerous for the longevity of society because they
actually cause more harm and damage in the long run.

A properly educated populace tends to "progress," while an uneducated
populace tends to "congress" back into the dark ages.

> > Have not the Irish Catholics been leaving their church in droves
> > because of free choice?
>
> Legally Catholic state for centuries.

Please clarify what you mean by this.

> > Have not the Methodist Chapels in Wales been
> > closing at the rate of one a week because of the free choice of
> > their members to leave the church?
>
> Legally anglican state for centuries. In both cases as I wrote:
>
> >> Which is probably why the legally theocratic nations of northern
> >> Europe have so many beautiful but almost empty state supported
> >> churches and is probably why societies dominated by fundies have
> >> such harshly oppressive governments.
> > ...
> >> Of course then theology will be a form of
> >> engineering not a form of religion. If ever. There's no
> >> guarantee it will ever happen.
> >
> > Just the reverse. I guarantee that it will never happen.
>
> I guarantee that no one will ever explain why certain rocks spin to
> face north when floated. Oops, too late one day someone explained
> that.

That's a false dichotomy fallacy, for spinning rocks can be examined,
tested, etc., because they are real.

> >> Studies of patternicity are at least as likely to
> >> provide proof going the opposite direction. Not that most
> >> religions will fall because most don't depend on their deities
> >> existing.
> >
> > They depend only on the _belief_ that their deity exists. No
> > evidence is ever forthcoming, as they have none.
>
> Nice misunderstanding of my statement. Very Christian of you.

What would be an example of a correct understanding then?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?"
-- Anonymous

[Calvin Ramsey]

The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have
no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this
may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced

to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a

judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
commitment or non-action concerning belief.

In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position. You see,
if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and

are exposing them. Without a doubt, there are far more people in the

world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more

Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position. If the

majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
their position. This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming

more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There

[Doug Freyburger]

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Smiler wrote:
>> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> >> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have
>> >> had direct personal experiences of deity.
>
>> > Prove it.
>
>> Ask them.
>
> Does this mean that you don't believe them either?

I've met a few. It's a matter of direct personal observation. And in
the end it doesn't matter if my observations are in error because what
matters is the results.

Science works by starting from personal observation. People do have
personal observations of deity. Have had as far back as archeological
physical evidence goes. Denialism is an act of faith which of course
you'll deny.

>> >> Noone or almost no one has had
>> >> direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns.
>
>> > Agian, prove it.
>
>> Ask the person who made it up as an example of failed logic. The
>> example is a deliberate fiction and makes the leap that those who had
>> had direct personal experiences of deity also report their experiences
>> are making up deliberate fictions.
>
> Just in case you were referring to me (although you might very well have
> been referring to Calvin Ramsey), the example I provided was about
> imagining a black horse and then, for 10 seconds, trying not to think
> about that black horse. My point was a logical one -- no position was
> required to have this image of a black horse (or a white horse, or
> something else) in one's thoughts; it certainly wasn't a conclusion
> like the one you just described.

I get that point. You clearly don't get the point about invisible pink
unicorns. They are a deliberate fiction so no one or almost no one has
had direct personal experience of them. As such they are not a valid
point for comparison against deities which billions have experienced
across the millennia.

>> >> As such they by definition can't exist. That sort of
>> >> unexistance by definition only applies to one type of deity of one
>> >> type of religion.
>
>> > Nope. It applies to most religions. The god of the bible, by
>> > definition, is equally non-existent.
>
>> Incorrect. Learn something about other religions some time. As with
>> the deliberate fiction model of the unicorns you're uses an incorrect
>> conclusion as one of the basis of your logical.
>
> "Deities and supernatural agents" seem to be present in most religions.

"Spooky action at a distance" seems to be present in science. So?

Present does not make them a make it or break it issue in most
religions. Most religions have lore that depicts deities as if they
exist but most religions acknowledge their lore as being morality
stories. Thor did not actually go fishing. As such most religions
would not need to change if it were proven that dieties don't exist. If
it were proven that deities exist that would trigger changes in the
morality stories told by most religions but would only break a few of
them.

>> >> Until you observe the behavior of atheists.
>
>> > What 'behaviour' is that?
>
>> There you go.
>
> Please clarify what you mean.

Read more posts on AA. Especially the ones that call anyone who is a
member of any religion a liar or delusional. It would take a lot of
denial to miss it.

>> Here I am observing the behavior.
>
> You're observing a mixture of anti-theistic behaviour and defensive
> behaviour. When someone tries to push their corrupt moral values on
> others, some will merely reject and/or challenge them (which is
> atheistic because it's not actually an attack), while others will take
> it much further and respond with a much stronger push in the form of an
> actual attack (which can be viewed as anti-theistic).

Which is mis-directed as there are only a few religions that attack
science. It's a mistaken generalization that results in attacking every
religion when the attacks on science only come from a few of them.

> The key is identifying and understanding the difference between these
> two things, which I've found that most extreme religious
> right-wing-nuts regularly fail to do; it's as if they're seeing the
> world as one big "black and white" bifurcation that leads them to
> illogically conclude consistently that everyone who isn't with them is
> automatically against them.

It's a difference the atheist attackers do not make. The attacks start
by members of a small numbers of religions against the atheists. The
attacks proceed from the atheists to all religions. Because the key is
identifying and understanding the difference between these two things.

>> > They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
>>
>> Which really matters to the ones that claim other faiths are wrong.
>
> That claim is anti-theistic, by the way.

In case you mean my statement that it only matters to the ones that
claim other faiths are wrong, I'll correct it to anti those specific
faiths. Mostly the monotheistic ones. Christianity and Islam have long
histories suppressing other religions. Judaism did a very long time ago
and whether they have gotten over it is a matter of interpreting history
and how their tribal system works. I'm openly opposed to those
religions that make the mistake of biblical inerrancy.

All the others which include both polytheistic like Shinto and Asatru,
atheistic like Buddhism, those I don't oppose. I do symmetrical
tolerance - Those who tolerate my practices I tolerate theirs. Which is
why I dislike the fact that some in science attack any religion without
the distinction.

> Of course, the claim that
> "they can't all be right" obviously has credibility because it's logical
> due to the fact that many religions also make the claim that there can
> only be one deity - theirs.

That's the problem of those few religions. For every person there can
be a different locus for what's right. So long as a religion does not
make the mistake of saying that people who practice other religions are
wrong they can all be right. So long as a religion tells its lore as
morality stores that do not depend on the deities existing they can all
be right. There are only a few religions that make mistakes of those
two issues.

>> >>> Note: That's the "bandwagon" logical fallacy.
>
>> >> There's an additional logical falacy in place, though - There exist
>> >> people who have direct personal experiences of deity.
>
>> > How do you tell the difference between someone who 'has direct
>> > personal experiences of deity' and a schizophrenic who hears voices
>> > in their head?
>
>> By observing their behavior.
>
> What behaviour differentiates these two?

Generally people who have had direct personal experience of deity are
more sane not less sane. It's the same as many who have had near death
experiences are more sane not less sane. Better centered. More aware
of what matters in life. Not all. Some become ecentric in ways that
are not harmful but that are kooky. More aware of what matters in their
life does not always match more aware of what matters in the lives of
others.

> In your opinion, is it also possible someone who "has personal
> experiences of deity" to also be schizophrenic?

Not in the least. A college friend went schizophrenic. He was seeing
things. He flunked out and had to go through some very nasty medical
procedures before he stabalized. It ruined his life.

> If so, what would be the behaviour exhibited by such a person?

You might be refering to the person who wrote the Koran. Having met
someone who went schizophrenic I think the the person who wrote that
book had some other disorder. Founding a hostile religion that ends up
with a billion or more followers is a worst case. Saul of Tarus would
be another such worst case. Students of history should be able to study
the worst abusers and see if their claims fit the mold.

People who have direct personal experience of deity stay sane. Some
stop being materialistic and end up poor cat ladies. Some work hard and
do well in the material world. All that I've met have been well
centered.

People who come down with schizonphrenia go nuts. They lose any
centering they had before the disease expressed itself.

If you've ever known someone who progressed from sane to schizophrenic
and someone else who has had direct personal experience of deity you
would be aware of just how laughable such a comparison is.

>> >> And if you're a member of one of those small religions and you
>> >> happen to be near Darfur the rifles of both sides are pointed at
>> >> you. It's still only two faiths.
>
>> > And if you're on the border between Israel and the Gaza strip, or
>> > were in Belfast in the 1970's, or are on the border between India
>> > and Pakistan, it's still only two faiths, but different ones in
>> > each case.
>
>> The Druze do indeed get targetted by both sides. A lot of Sieks were
>> wiped out by Indira Gandhi's regime and her assassination was in
>> revenge. Minority religions in Eire? Not enough recontructionist
>> Druids or Asatru to be targetted yet. The middle east example expands
>> it to three all still of the JCISMR family.
>
> That's interesting.

It's debatable how many faiths have the problems you ascribe to all of
them. Can you find evidence of any outside of the JCISMR family? your
example of the border between India and Pakistan has Muslims on one side
and the attacked on the other side. Hindus have learned by bitter
experience what happens when Muslims acheive a local majority. Riots
and wars. That doesn't happen when Hindus acheive a local majority.

Here is Chicago metro Hindus are building nice new temples and buying up
old churches right and left. Want to bet that any neighborhood where
Hindus acheive a local majority sees no riots?

When it comes th members of the JCISMR family they tend to be good
people. But the system they live in needs to be watched carefully and
opposed as needed. Islam Jihadists are currently passing through their
own crusade phase. Christianity has historically grown out of those
phases but there are sects that keep trying to push more and more of
their rules into secular society. Subtle stuff like getting a logo on
the currency to obvious stuff like trying to pull evolution from school
ciricula.

Any of this from any non-JCISMR religions? I can wait. It's that
difference you mentioned above that you likely thought applied in the
other direction than it actually does.

>> >>> Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc., is
>> >>> imperative for a healthy society's longevity.
>> >>
>> >> And it tends to increase the religious membershep and fervor in
>> >> the free society.
>> >
>> > Bullshit.
>>
>> So you've never been to the US. Gotcha.
>
> Actually, religion seems to be very popular in the USA, but this has
> more to do with childhood education.

That's quite the claim. Defense?

My claim is that the US has had freedom of religion built in from the
foundation. As a result people knew they could chose. Being able to
chose your own faith allowed many the chance to express fervor that
would not have been present in a land without choices. My defense is
that as freedom of religion has grown in other lands some have seen
growth in fervor others have seen growth in diversity. In the US growth
in diversity predated growth in fervor.

> Of course, freedom of choice
> taken to extremes can lead to chaos, so there are some standards that
> are needed for a society to function properly -- laws, regulations,
> minimum education requirements for children, etc.

That extends from freedom of religion to anarchy. Outside of the bounds
of religion no matter that a small number of faiths make the mistaken
claim that morality comes from their deity.

When it comes to religion I'll take religious chaos thanks. Freedom of
religion must include both freedom of any religion and freedom from
religion. I could never have made my choice without such freedom.

> The exclusion of
> skeptical thinking classes and the introduction of creationism in
> public schools are dangerous for the longevity of society because they
> actually cause more harm and damage in the long run.
>
> A properly educated populace tends to "progress," while an uneducated
> populace tends to "congress" back into the dark ages.

More on a specific set of faiths.

>> > Have not the Irish Catholics been leaving their church in droves
>> > because of free choice?
>
>> Legally Catholic state for centuries.
>
> Please clarify what you mean by this.

Catholic and/or Anglican membership was mandated in Eire for a very
long time depending on the century and location. Until under a century
ago heresy was a punished crime. People could chose to not attend but
did not have the choice to not profess.

Now that Eire has the fact of religious freedom the population is
diversifying out of Catholicism. Druidry is going from unknown to tiny.
All sorts of other faiths are emerging in the population. And of
course plenty are taking advantage of the fact that freedom of religion
includes freedom from religion.

>> >> Of course then theology will be a form of
>> >> engineering not a form of religion. If ever. There's no
>> >> guarantee it will ever happen.
>
>> > Just the reverse. I guarantee that it will never happen.
>
>> I guarantee that no one will ever explain why certain rocks spin to
>> face north when floated. Oops, too late one day someone explained
>> that.
>
> That's a false dichotomy fallacy, for spinning rocks can be examined,
> tested, etc., because they are real.

People are real.

>> >> Studies of patternicity are at least as likely to
>> >> provide proof going the opposite direction. Not that most
>> >> religions will fall because most don't depend on their deities
>> >> existing.
>
>> > They depend only on the _belief_ that their deity exists. No
>> > evidence is ever forthcoming, as they have none.
>
>> Nice misunderstanding of my statement. Very Christian of you.
>
> What would be an example of a correct understanding then?

The morality story thing. Very Christian of you to base your stance on
the Christian insistence that the existence of deity is required for a
religion.

Nice discuss. Disagreeing and calling each other mistaken and engaging
in debate without the usual resorting directly to calling each other
liars as appears to be certain other posters' only resort. Not that I
expect we'll ever agree on certain issues. I neither expect nor hope
for that. What I hope for is non-zero progress on no longer letting the
Christians or JCISMR family define the field of discussion.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:09:57 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

Why are you repeating Matt Slick's bad arguments? He is wrong. He
failed. You know he failed.

[Calvin Ramsey]

Why not give verifiable proof that he's wrong, rather than just make an
empty claim?

Unless..... you're lying, and you know you're lying........

<smirk>

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 11:21:22 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 9/2/2012 10:29 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:09:57 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

Yes.

>>> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>>> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.

Yes.

>>> In other words, they have
>>> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>>> on the matter concerning God.

First attempt to mislead. The "in other words" expands far beyond what
the atheist said.

>>> To them it is a non-issue. Though this
>>> may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
>>> to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it.

Not believing is not neutral. It is not believing.

>>> You invariably make a
>>> judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
>>> brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
>>> it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
>>> belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
>>> commitment or non-action concerning belief.

Does this writer understand what "I do not believe" means? Nothing here
implies that he does. Of course, it seems very likely that he knows that
lack of belief is not defined as "a non-intellectual commitment or
non-action concerning belief," and never has been.

>>> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
>>> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.

His opinion is either completely, intentionally dishonest, or he really
has no idea what he is talking about and has no understanding of not
believing.

>>> You see,
>>> if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
>>> position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
>>> remain atheists.

"I do not believe" is not no position and the writer knows that.

>>> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
>>> serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
>>> are exposing them.

So he alleges. Where is his evidence to support his assertion?

>>> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
>>> world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
>>> Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position.

Again, an assertion that is completely unsubstantiated.

>>> If the
>>> majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
>>> examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
>>> their position.

Another unsupported assertion. What does he think I cannot defend. Never
once has he told me. Why? I don't know, maybe he knows that he is
blowing smoke and that he cannot possibly offer a single valid objection
to atheism. Clearly he has not managed to do so in this bit of
fraudulent apologetics.

>>> This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
>>> more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
>>> is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
>>> measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
>>> known and atheism will become extinct.

So, he offers a 100%-evidence-free series of claims and makes no effort
at all to back them up. It appears that he knows that he cannot back it
up, that he knows his entire essay is fraudulent.

>>> (by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")
>>>
>> Why are you repeating Matt Slick's bad arguments? He is wrong. He
>> failed. You know he failed.
>
>Why not give verifiable proof that he's wrong, rather than just make an
>empty claim?
>
>Unless..... you're lying, and you know you're lying........
>
><smirk>

How many times will you ignore what I have told you and then repeat the
lies that you are so proud of telling? On the off chance that you
actually care that we know you are lying and repeating the lies of other
fraudulent apologetics, I have answered above. You are still a shameless
liar and fraud.

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/2/2012 1:30 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 11:21:22 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On 9/2/2012 10:29 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:09:57 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>
> Yes.
>
>>>> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>>>> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>
> Yes.
>
>>>> In other words, they have
>>>> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>>>> on the matter concerning God.
>
> First attempt to mislead. The "in other words" expands far beyond what
> the atheist said.

You're merely making another empty assertion.
You now need to explain how you think it expands far beyond what the

atheist said.

>
>
>>>> To them it is a non-issue. Though this
>>>> may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced
>>>> to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it.
>
> Not believing is not neutral. It is not believing.

You're merely making another empty assertion.
You now need to explain why you think not believing is not neutral.

>>>> You invariably make a
>>>> judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can
>>>> brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject
>>>> it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of
>>>> belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual
>>>> commitment or non-action concerning belief.
>
> Does this writer understand what "I do not believe" means? Nothing here
> implies that he does. Of course, it seems very likely that he knows that
> lack of belief is not defined as "a non-intellectual commitment or
> non-action concerning belief," and never has been.

You're merely expressing your own personal opinion.
You now need to prove your opinion is true.

>
>>>> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
>>>> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
>
> His opinion is either completely, intentionally dishonest, or he really
> has no idea what he is talking about and has no understanding of not
> believing.

You're merely expressing your own personal opinion.
You now need to prove your opinion is true.

>>>> You see,
>>>> if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
>>>> position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
>>>> remain atheists.
>
> "I do not believe" is not no position and the writer knows that.

You're merely making another empty assertion.
You now need to explain why you think the writer knows that "I do not
believe" is not no position. Otherwise, you've merely expressed another
of your own personal opinions.

You've failed miserably in proving that Matt Slick is wrong in any of
his claims.

All you have accomplished so far is posting more of your empty
assertions full of your own subjective personal opinions.

Anybody can do that.

Next time, bring some verifiable evidence with you.

That way you won't look so ridiculous and comically preposterous.

<smirk>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:30:44 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

They don't, and they don't believe us - it is so "real" and supremely
important to them that they can't conceive of its sheer irrelevance to
those outside their belief system.

This is the root of their nastiness and personal lies - they invent
"reasons" for positions we don't even hold.

Far too many try to "prove" we're not telling he truth about
ourselves, by telling us what our POV "really" is - and "why" we say
what we do.

In ways that bolster their own self-esteem because the very existence
of people who see it as merely somebody else's religious belief, is an
insult to them.

To them we are arrogantly and actively dissing not just the supreme
ruler of the universe but also the thing that is most important to
them - which is "real".

>>>> In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid
>>>> facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.
>
>His opinion is either completely, intentionally dishonest, or he really
>has no idea what he is talking about and has no understanding of not
>believing.

It's both.

He is also completely devoid of commonsense and courtesy when it comes
to the world beyond his religion.

Theism brings that out in people because it erects walls around their
minds.

>>>> You see,
>>>> if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their
>>>> position is not open to attack and examination, and they can quietly
>>>> remain atheists.
>
>"I do not believe" is not no position and the writer knows that.

It has been explained over and over again, but like all the other
loonies we get here, he refuses to accept this.

For almost everything else they understand that when one has no reason
to believe something then one doesn't - but in their mends their god
is different.

It's real so there must be evidence for it, otherwise they wouldn't
believe, right?

Wrong - they believe because they were taught to in their earliest
years. But they can't understand this.

So we are lying when we point out the total lack of evidence as a
reason not to believe.

It's also why they talk about "the evidence" without actually
providing any.

>>>> The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more
>>>> serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and
>>>> are exposing them.
>
>So he alleges. Where is his evidence to support his assertion?

He pulled it out of his arse.

>>>> Without a doubt, there are far more people in the
>>>> world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more
>>>> Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position.
>
>Again, an assertion that is completely unsubstantiated.

Because what is actually is, isn't untenable.

>>>> If the
>>>> majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in
>>>> examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend
>>>> their position.
>
>Another unsupported assertion. What does he think I cannot defend. Never
>once has he told me. Why? I don't know, maybe he knows that he is
>blowing smoke and that he cannot possibly offer a single valid objection
>to atheism. Clearly he has not managed to do so in this bit of
>fraudulent apologetics.

In what passes for his "mind", he knows what is in our minds better
than we do ourselves. Even though he's not a mind-reader.

>>>> This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming
>>>> more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms. There
>>>> is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive
>>>> measures are being taken on both sides. In the end, the truth will be
>>>> known and atheism will become extinct.
>
>So, he offers a 100%-evidence-free series of claims and makes no effort
>at all to back them up. It appears that he knows that he cannot back it
>up, that he knows his entire essay is fraudulent.

He has a mental disconnect about this. Our POV can't be what we say it
is, so it must be something else that he rationalises. And he stops at
the first thing he comes up with.

>>>> (by Matt Slick, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry")
>>>>
>>> Why are you repeating Matt Slick's bad arguments? He is wrong. He
>>> failed. You know he failed.
>>
>>Why not give verifiable proof that he's wrong, rather than just make an
>>empty claim?

Done over and over again, but the Liars For God refuse to accept
atheists telling them what it means to atheists to be atheist.

>>Unless..... you're lying, and you know you're lying........
>>
>><smirk>
>
>How many times will you ignore what I have told you and then repeat the
>lies that you are so proud of telling? On the off chance that you
>actually care that we know you are lying and repeating the lies of other
>fraudulent apologetics, I have answered above. You are still a shameless
>liar and fraud.

In his mind lying doesn't make him a liar - lies aren't lies when
they're just something to say, one more symptom of the narcissistic
personality disorder that religion brings out in anybody with a
tendency for it.

Being a narcissist he doesn't understand that all we see is the lie,
and he imagines that treating him as a liar for his lies, is a
schoolyard insult.

It also means he projects himself and his habitual lying on others,
another reason he imagines we're lying about ourselves.

But it's not just this loonie, it's all the others we get here as
well.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 13:59:04 -0400, Calvin Ramsey

<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

>On 9/2/2012 1:30 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 11:21:22 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> On 9/2/2012 10:29 AM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:09:57 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>
>>>>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>>> In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way
>>>>> they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>>> In other words, they have
>>>>> no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief
>>>>> on the matter concerning God.
>>
>> First attempt to mislead. The "in other words" expands far beyond what
>> the atheist said.
>
>You're merely making another empty assertion.
>You now need to explain how you think it expands far beyond what the
>atheist said.

Your inability to understand English or logic is clearly too serious for
a discussion to occur. Go ahead, keep worshipping the god you invented
and the heaven that you decided you would be alone in.

[Calvin Ramsey]

All you have to do is explain, in pure English, exactly what you mean.
Your inability to do that tells me that was all just your excuse for
having nothing to say.

And, yes, I agree with Steve Wilson. Your idea of who God is nowhere
near correct.

Why you are unable to see that, and make the necessary correction, is
the real question.

It is you who has "invented" your own god.

In short, you really have no idea what you're talking about.

It's sad, but it's true. You prove it with every one of your posts.

You must be getting tired of being wrong all the time.

[snip]

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 12:30:05 +0000 (UTC)
Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> > Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Smiler wrote:
> >> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
> >
> >> >> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people
> >> >> have had direct personal experiences of deity.
> >
> >> > Prove it.
> >
> >> Ask them.
> >
> > Does this mean that you don't believe them either?
>
> I've met a few. It's a matter of direct personal observation. And in
> the end it doesn't matter if my observations are in error because what
> matters is the results.

For purely results-oriented research, you're correct, but not all
research is focused exclusively on results.

> Science works by starting from personal observation. People do have
> personal observations of deity. Have had as far back as archeological
> physical evidence goes.

Not all observations are personal. Science works by eliminating what
doesn't work with an objective goal of finding reproducable consistency.

> Denialism is an act of faith which of course you'll deny.

Your prediction is incorrect, for the reason behind the denial would
have to be considered before one could determine if said denial is
actually based on faith. In short, denial can be faith based, but this
isn't always the case.

> >> >> Noone or almost no one has had
> >> >> direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns.
> >
> >> > Agian, prove it.
> >
> >> Ask the person who made it up as an example of failed logic. The
> >> example is a deliberate fiction and makes the leap that those who
> >> had had direct personal experiences of deity also report their
> >> experiences are making up deliberate fictions.
> >
> > Just in case you were referring to me (although you might very well
> > have been referring to Calvin Ramsey), the example I provided was
> > about imagining a black horse and then, for 10 seconds, trying not
> > to think about that black horse. My point was a logical one -- no
> > position was required to have this image of a black horse (or a
> > white horse, or something else) in one's thoughts; it certainly
> > wasn't a conclusion like the one you just described.
>
> I get that point. You clearly don't get the point about invisible
> pink unicorns. They are a deliberate fiction so no one or almost no
> one has had direct personal experience of them. As such they are not
> a valid point for comparison against deities which billions have
> experienced across the millennia.

Your reliance on the bandwagon fallacy doesn't effect the invalidity of
your argument, for, in accordance with reality, the number of personal
experiences can't change any amount of anecdotal fiction into fact.

So, my question to you is this: What L.O.V.E. (Logical, Objective,
Verifiable Evidence) can you provide that one or more deities do exist?

L.O.V.E.: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl

> >> >> As such they by definition can't exist. That sort of
> >> >> unexistance by definition only applies to one type of deity of
> >> >> one type of religion.
> >
> >> > Nope. It applies to most religions. The god of the bible, by
> >> > definition, is equally non-existent.
> >
> >> Incorrect. Learn something about other religions some time. As
> >> with the deliberate fiction model of the unicorns you're uses an
> >> incorrect conclusion as one of the basis of your logical.
> >
> > "Deities and supernatural agents" seem to be present in most
> > religions.
>
> "Spooky action at a distance" seems to be present in science. So?

"Unexplained" is very different from "assuming that a deity did it."

> Present does not make them a make it or break it issue in most
> religions. Most religions have lore that depicts deities as if they
> exist but most religions acknowledge their lore as being morality
> stories. Thor did not actually go fishing. As such most religions
> would not need to change if it were proven that dieties don't exist.
> If it were proven that deities exist that would trigger changes in the
> morality stories told by most religions but would only break a few of
> them.

Nonsense. Have you not seen how neurotically delusional many
church-goers are? Nearly all religious people I've ever met are
convinced that their deities are real, and if you ask any group of
people praying en masse at just about any Christian, Catholic, Jewish,
Muslim, etc., church/mosque/etc., if their deities are real, then it's
extremely unlikely that the answer is going to be "no."

Your argument makes no sense because people praying to their deities
obviously believe that those deities are real (otherwise they wouldn't
be praying to them in the first place).

> >> >> Until you observe the behavior of atheists.
> >
> >> > What 'behaviour' is that?
> >
> >> There you go.
> >
> > Please clarify what you mean.
>
> Read more posts on AA. Especially the ones that call anyone who is a
> member of any religion a liar or delusional. It would take a lot of
> denial to miss it.

What I've observed is that people are called liars when they lie, and
that people ware called delusion when they fail to apply basic logic to
their beliefs. The fact that most of them are also religious doesn't
mean that being religion is the reason for the truthful observations.

Of course, if the motivation is solely to oppose their theistic views,
then that's anti-theism for which I suggest you "call a spade a spade"
instead of trying to drag all atheists into an anti-theistic paradigm
because that would be more objective and fair.

> >> Here I am observing the behavior.
> >
> > You're observing a mixture of anti-theistic behaviour and defensive
> > behaviour. When someone tries to push their corrupt moral values on
> > others, some will merely reject and/or challenge them (which is
> > atheistic because it's not actually an attack), while others will
> > take it much further and respond with a much stronger push in the
> > form of an actual attack (which can be viewed as anti-theistic).
>
> Which is mis-directed as there are only a few religions that attack
> science. It's a mistaken generalization that results in attacking
> every religion when the attacks on science only come from a few of
> them.

It's not clear what the "number of religions attacking science" has to
do with the "distinction between atheism and anti-theism," therefore
your claim of mis-direction is logically denied.

> > The key is identifying and understanding the difference between
> > these two things, which I've found that most extreme religious
> > right-wing-nuts regularly fail to do; it's as if they're seeing the
> > world as one big "black and white" bifurcation that leads them to
> > illogically conclude consistently that everyone who isn't with them
> > is automatically against them.
>
> It's a difference the atheist attackers do not make. The attacks
> start by members of a small numbers of religions against the
> atheists. The attacks proceed from the atheists to all religions.
> Because the key is identifying and understanding the difference
> between these two things.

You just failed to correctly apply circular logic by depending on a
subtle non-sequitur, for this distinction is not applicable to
anti-theism since anti-theism is usually atheistic in nature -- one key
fact to be aware of is that atheism isn't necessarily anti-theistic.

Where anti-theism specifically opposes theism, atheism does not since
it is merely an "absence of belief in dieties and supernatural agents."

The problem that keeps occuring with religious right-wing-nuts is that
they routinely ignore this difference and just incorrectly assume that
anti-theism is synonymous with atheism, and then they set their sights
on both, based entirely on that misunderstanding.

> >> > They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
> >>
> >> Which really matters to the ones that claim other faiths are wrong.
> >
> > That claim is anti-theistic, by the way.
>
> In case you mean my statement that it only matters to the ones that
> claim other faiths are wrong, I'll correct it to anti those specific
> faiths. Mostly the monotheistic ones. Christianity and Islam have
> long histories suppressing other religions. Judaism did a very long
> time ago and whether they have gotten over it is a matter of
> interpreting history and how their tribal system works. I'm openly
> opposed to those religions that make the mistake of biblical
> inerrancy.
>
> All the others which include both polytheistic like Shinto and Asatru,
> atheistic like Buddhism, those I don't oppose. I do symmetrical
> tolerance - Those who tolerate my practices I tolerate theirs. Which
> is why I dislike the fact that some in science attack any religion
> without the distinction.

Okay, this is excellent progress. The "some in science attack any
religion without distinction" you are referring to definitely belong in
the "anti-theist" camp, and although they may also fit into the atheist
classification it's important to realize that atheism isn't what
primarily defines them.

> > Of course, the claim that "they can't all be right" obviously has
> > credibility because it's logical due to the fact that many
> > religions also make the claim that there can only be one deity -
> > theirs.
>
> That's the problem of those few religions. For every person there can
> be a different locus for what's right. So long as a religion does not
> make the mistake of saying that people who practice other religions
> are wrong they can all be right. So long as a religion tells its
> lore as morality stores that do not depend on the deities existing
> they can all be right.

Yes, but this only works as long as religion and religious values are
not imposed on others.

> There are only a few religions that make mistakes of those two issues.

There are a lot of people and religious leaders practicing many
religions and expect to impose it on others, so I can't agree with your
observation on this point.

> >> >>> Note: That's the "bandwagon" logical fallacy.
> >
> >> >> There's an additional logical falacy in place, though - There
> >> >> exist people who have direct personal experiences of deity.
> >
> >> > How do you tell the difference between someone who 'has direct
> >> > personal experiences of deity' and a schizophrenic who hears
> >> > voices in their head?
> >
> >> By observing their behavior.
> >
> > What behaviour differentiates these two?
>
> Generally people who have had direct personal experience of deity are
> more sane not less sane. It's the same as many who have had near
> death experiences are more sane not less sane. Better centered.
> More aware of what matters in life. Not all. Some become ecentric
> in ways that are not harmful but that are kooky. More aware of what
> matters in their life does not always match more aware of what
> matters in the lives of others.

Those are good points, but they're not the only issues. The problem
with being delusional in one area is that there is often a great
potential to be delusional in other areas as well. Not resolving the
delusions is not helpful to the longevity of a healthy society because
it often leads to disruption and conflict.

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig

By supporting delusional thoughts instead of helping people resolve
their problems, one is actually "enabling" the deluded to continue in
their delusions. People who imagine snakes all over the place are
often regarded as "crazy" even when those snakes aren't hurting anyone,
but when people imagine that a deity spoke to them it's generally
accepted as "not crazy" -- this is obviously a double-standard that
needs to be corrected sooner than later, at least for the benefit of
future generations.

> > In your opinion, is it also possible someone who "has personal
> > experiences of deity" to also be schizophrenic?
>
> Not in the least. A college friend went schizophrenic. He was seeing
> things. He flunked out and had to go through some very nasty medical
> procedures before he stabalized. It ruined his life.

(That's terrible, and I feel sorry for you that that you lost a friend.)

> > If so, what would be the behaviour exhibited by such a person?
>
> You might be refering to the person who wrote the Koran. Having met
> someone who went schizophrenic I think the the person who wrote that
> book had some other disorder. Founding a hostile religion that ends
> up with a billion or more followers is a worst case. Saul of Tarus
> would be another such worst case. Students of history should be able
> to study the worst abusers and see if their claims fit the mold.
>
> People who have direct personal experience of deity stay sane. Some
> stop being materialistic and end up poor cat ladies. Some work hard
> and do well in the material world. All that I've met have been well
> centered.
>
> People who come down with schizonphrenia go nuts. They lose any
> centering they had before the disease expressed itself.
>
> If you've ever known someone who progressed from sane to schizophrenic
> and someone else who has had direct personal experience of deity you
> would be aware of just how laughable such a comparison is.

So, by your logic, it's not possible for schizophrenic person to
communicate with deities. I find this lacking in impartiality, unless
there's some rule about dieites not being able to, or not wanting to,
communicate with schizophrenic people? (If so, then they'd be in the
same boat as amputees for whom "the power of prayer" simply never seems
to work to their benefit.)

It depends on what the individual members do in the name of their
beloved religions. Currently there are certain religions which are
more outspoken than others, and which also have extremists in their
ranks who represent it in a rather militant fashion. Over time, this
could shift into other religions which, as they are gradually adapted
(just look at how many variations of The Holy Bible are used), things
could very well change from past intentions for them too. It all
depends on where the followers and leaders in the given religion decide
to go with it.

> >> >>> Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc.,
> >> >>> is imperative for a healthy society's longevity.
> >> >>
> >> >> And it tends to increase the religious membershep and fervor in
> >> >> the free society.
> >> >
> >> > Bullshit.
> >>
> >> So you've never been to the US. Gotcha.
> >
> > Actually, religion seems to be very popular in the USA, but this has
> > more to do with childhood education.
>
> That's quite the claim. Defense?

That wasn't a claim, rather it was an observation. Do we really need
census numbers or polling statistics to confirm that religion is very
popular in the USA? It's common knowledge that it is.

> My claim is that the US has had freedom of religion built in from the
> foundation. As a result people knew they could chose. Being able to
> chose your own faith allowed many the chance to express fervor that
> would not have been present in a land without choices. My defense is
> that as freedom of religion has grown in other lands some have seen
> growth in fervor others have seen growth in diversity. In the US
> growth in diversity predated growth in fervor.

Unfortunately that's not entirely true -- religious values are being
forced upon the populace every time abortion is outlawed. Although it
is in the first amendment of the USA constitution that secularism is
essentially an inalienable right, these rules are effectively ignored
on a regular basis.

> > Of course, freedom of choice taken to extremes can lead to chaos,
> > so there are some standards that are needed for a society to
> > function properly -- laws, regulations, minimum education
> > requirements for children, etc.
>
> That extends from freedom of religion to anarchy.

No, for laws and regulations are anti-anarchistic by definition alone.

> Outside of the bounds of religion no matter that a small number of
> faiths make the mistaken claim that morality comes from their deity.
>
> When it comes to religion I'll take religious chaos thanks. Freedom
> of religion must include both freedom of any religion and freedom from
> religion. I could never have made my choice without such freedom.

Yes.

> > The exclusion of skeptical thinking classes and the introduction of
> > creationism in public schools are dangerous for the longevity of
> > society because they actually cause more harm and damage in the
> > long run.
> >
> > A properly educated populace tends to "progress," while an
> > uneducated populace tends to "congress" back into the dark ages.
>
> More on a specific set of faiths.

Okay.

> >> > Have not the Irish Catholics been leaving their church in droves
> >> > because of free choice?
> >
> >> Legally Catholic state for centuries.
> >
> > Please clarify what you mean by this.
>
> Catholic and/or Anglican membership was mandated in Eire for a very
> long time depending on the century and location. Until under a
> century ago heresy was a punished crime. People could chose to not
> attend but did not have the choice to not profess.
>
> Now that Eire has the fact of religious freedom the population is
> diversifying out of Catholicism. Druidry is going from unknown to
> tiny. All sorts of other faiths are emerging in the population. And
> of course plenty are taking advantage of the fact that freedom of
> religion includes freedom from religion.

Thanks. This is excellent.

> >> >> Of course then theology will be a form of
> >> >> engineering not a form of religion. If ever. There's no
> >> >> guarantee it will ever happen.
> >
> >> > Just the reverse. I guarantee that it will never happen.
> >
> >> I guarantee that no one will ever explain why certain rocks spin to
> >> face north when floated. Oops, too late one day someone explained
> >> that.
> >
> > That's a false dichotomy fallacy, for spinning rocks can be
> > examined, tested, etc., because they are real.
>
> People are real.

People are more complicated than rocks, but medical sciences,
biological sciences, chemical sciences, and evolutionary sciences, ]all
four] in particular, are gradually improving the scientific
understanding of what "people" are.

What progress has there been in the understanding of deities?

> >> >> Studies of patternicity are at least as likely to
> >> >> provide proof going the opposite direction. Not that most
> >> >> religions will fall because most don't depend on their deities
> >> >> existing.
> >
> >> > They depend only on the _belief_ that their deity exists. No
> >> > evidence is ever forthcoming, as they have none.
> >
> >> Nice misunderstanding of my statement. Very Christian of you.
> >
> > What would be an example of a correct understanding then?
>
> The morality story thing. Very Christian of you to base your stance
> on the Christian insistence that the existence of deity is required
> for a religion.

I see, so you're seeing a Christian influence, but perhaps it's more a
cultural influence because I am not, nor ever have been, a Christian.

Although there are some religions known for not having any deities, the
vast majority of them seem to have deities and/or supernatural agents
(and Buddhism, for example, with its beautiful goddess named Guan Yin,
fails to qualify as "absent of a deities," although there is "Buddhist
philosophy" which might fit the non-theistic paradigm).

> Nice discuss. Disagreeing and calling each other mistaken and
> engaging in debate without the usual resorting directly to calling
> each other liars as appears to be certain other posters' only
> resort. Not that I expect we'll ever agree on certain issues. I
> neither expect nor hope for that. What I hope for is non-zero
> progress on no longer letting the Christians or JCISMR family define
> the field of discussion.

Thank you. I like this discussion too. You're interesting.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
-- Abraham Lincoln

[duke]

On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 18:36:30 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:43:45 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:40:23 -0400, Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.
>>>> It's wrong. That only makes than agnostics because they clearly find the
>>>> evidence not convincing.
>>> There's no evidence of evidence.
>>
>> I have it. Quntum physics.

>Evidence that creation is a crapshoot. Einstein didn't like it.

Hey, if you believe that all that was, is and will be is only an accident, go
for it.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:

> Hey, if you believe that all that was, is and will be is only an accident, go
> for it.

Men have nipples and Duke says the cosmos was designed.

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu
(Reformed)

http://www.cleanposts.com

[Budikka666]

On Sep 3, 6:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

It's not a "common position", it's *the* defintion of atheism -
lacking belief in gods. You're seriously out of your depth if you
think it's just a "common position".

But before you can attack atheism, you need to establish your own
position, because atheism is the default position until and unless
there is solid evidence suggesting that there actually are gods.

So why don't you and I formally debate your position that this god or
gods exist(s)?

Why don't you post your best five "evidences" for this creator god of
yours: either positive scientific evidence demonstrating that such a
being exists, or independent objective evidence demonstrating the
same?

Because if you can't do that all you have is hot air and that's not
going to convince anyone who has functional brain cells.

So go ahead, post your evidences, and let's you and me formally debate
them right here. I'll be more than happy to defend my atheistic
position. Can you defend your theistic one?

Let's see.

Budikka

[Smiler]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:00:41 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:

> On 8/31/2012 10:27 PM, Smiler wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> First show evidence for 'spirits'. Beliefs are NOT evidence.
>
> The evidence shows that evidently you're not meant (predestined) to know
> what the evidence for God is. If you were, you wouldn't need to ask.
>

Thanks for your admission that you have no evidence, Cal.

<snip biblebabble>

[Calvin Ramsey]

On 9/3/2012 8:46 PM, Smiler wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:00:41 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
>> On 8/31/2012 10:27 PM, Smiler wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> First show evidence for 'spirits'. Beliefs are NOT evidence.
>>
>> The evidence shows that evidently you're not meant (predestined) to know
>> what the evidence for God is. If you were, you wouldn't need to ask.
>>
>
> Thanks for your admission that you have no evidence, Cal.

I know that's your easy way out of a jam, without having to admit you're
wrong.

I have evidence that God exists, and that he loves me.

Only thing is, only the elect are allowed to know what it is.

> <snip biblebabble>

And you snipping those verses verifies that you know the Bible is
self-authenticating.

You can't hide it.

[Smiler]

On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 10:12:41 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

> On Aug 30, 10:54锟絧m, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:09:20 -0400
>>
>> Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
>> > The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of
>> > atheists. In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in

>> > God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. 锟絀n other

>> > words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no

>> > belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. 锟絋o them it is a
>> > non-issue. 锟絋hough this may sound sensible to some, the problem is

>> > that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about
>> > it.
>>

>> That's a philosophical assumption. 锟紿ave you ever introduced your cat

>> to the idea of theism?
>>
>> > You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been

>> > introduced to you. 锟結ou can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its

>> > possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you
>> > cannot return to a lack of belief position, if lack of belief is
>> > defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning
>> > belief.
>>

>> Why not? 锟紿ave you not heard of the expression "out of sight, out of

>> mind?"
>>
>>
> The issue is "determinability" or in science what is called
> falsifiability; whether or not it is possible to show something is true or
> false: is it testable.
>
> Think of flipping a coin with two possible outcomes; heads or tails.

There are three possible outcomes. The coin may land on its edge, neither
heads nor tails (I've seen it happen) on rare occasions.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 20:56:15 -0400
Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 8:46 PM, Smiler wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:00:41 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> >> On 8/31/2012 10:27 PM, Smiler wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> First show evidence for 'spirits'. Beliefs are NOT evidence.
> >>
> >> The evidence shows that evidently you're not meant (predestined)
> >> to know what the evidence for God is. If you were, you wouldn't
> >> need to ask.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for your admission that you have no evidence, Cal.
>
> I know that's your easy way out of a jam, without having to admit
> you're wrong.

Of course it was easy -- you didn't present much of a challenge.

He also wasn't wrong, so no such admission was necessary.

> I have evidence that God exists, and that he loves me.
>
> Only thing is, only the elect are allowed to know what it is.

If you want to convince those who value tools like scientific
methodology, then you're going to need to give us some L.O.V.E.
(Logical, Objective, Verifiable Evidence).

L.O.V.E.: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl

> > <snip biblebabble>
>
> And you snipping those verses verifies that you know the Bible is
> self-authenticating.
>
> You can't hide it.

Before you can make that claim, you're going to have to establish that
The Bible provides a credible accounting of history. Since this hasn't
been established, which is further confirmed by your use of the term
"self-authenticating" (a fancy manifesto of anecdotalism at best), it
is reasonable for quotations from The Bible to be omitted where
objectivity is the imperative.

> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever
> he wills."
> --Romans 9:18 (ESV)
>
> You're in the "reject pile" of humanity.

If that's true then why are you engaging in social intercourse with him?

> "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump
> one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
> --Romans 9:21 (ESV)

Ha ha! That must be a "Moral Orel" question.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
-- Victor Stenger

[Alex W.]

I would add a fourth outcome: uncertainty. Flip the coin down a
deep well while blindfold in a dark room, and you will not and
cannot know the outcome.

Or get Schrodinger's cat to flip the coin for you: unless and
until we open the box and determine the outcomen through
observation, the cat will be both alive or dead and the coin will
have landed on all three sides simultaneously.

Or thereabouts -- I'm not a physicist, I just watch the Big Bang
Theory on occasion.

[Doug Freyburger]

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> > Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Smiler wrote:
>> >> > Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>> >> >> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people
>> >> >> have had direct personal experiences of deity.
>
>> >> > Prove it.
>
>> >> Ask them.
>
>> > Does this mean that you don't believe them either?
>
>> I've met a few. It's a matter of direct personal observation. And in
>> the end it doesn't matter if my observations are in error because what
>> matters is the results.
>
> For purely results-oriented research, you're correct, but not all
> research is focused exclusively on results.

Euclician astonomy is incorrect. Euclidian astronomy results are
accurate enough to be used for surveying and pre-LORAN ship navigation.
The results matter. Sometimes the underlying assumptions don't need to
matter.

>> Science works by starting from personal observation. People do have
>> personal observations of deity. Have had as far back as archeological
>> physical evidence goes.
>
> Not all observations are personal.

All observations "start" as personal. Science uses instrumentation and
mathematical models to extend those personal observations. Until a
personal observation can be confirmed in one of those other ways it
remains subjective not objective.

> Science works by eliminating what
> doesn't work with an objective goal of finding reproducable consistency.

Progress in science includes moving the subjective into the objective.
That's what the invention of a new mathematical model does. It moves
what ost perceived as random or subjective into what one person
perceived using the new formula into what all can confirm using
instrumentation.

As with my navigation example science works whether the mathematical
model is correct or not, and science uses what works. Science also uses
direct personal observation is its raw material.None of this adds up to
the observed existance of deity as objective. It doesn't add up to
denying that the observations "are real" either.

>> Denialism is an act of faith which of course you'll deny.
>
> Your prediction is incorrect, for the reason behind the denial would
> have to be considered before one could determine if said denial is
> actually based on faith. In short, denial can be faith based, but this
> isn't always the case.

There's still the problem that you called direct observation of deity
schizophrenic. Given the behavior of schizophrenics and the behavior of
people who have had direct personal observation of deity and how
different those behaviors are why should I not conclude it's not
denialism?

>> > "Deities and supernatural agents" seem to be present in most
>> > religions.
>
>> "Spooky action at a distance" seems to be present in science. So?
>
> "Unexplained" is very different from "assuming that a deity did it."

Unexplained defines supernatural. Don't need deity or personification
of nature to be supernatural. The "assuming part a deity did it" comes
in with the example of static electricity. The claim is that the
ancients invented Thor to explain thunder. When static electricity was
explained Thor disappeared in a puff of logic. I find the logical error
in it frustrating. Thor finds it hilarious. Thor's good company but
there are times I just don't get his stances.

Magnets were spooky action at a distance until magnetism was explained.

>> Present does not make them a make it or break it issue in most
>> religions. Most religions have lore that depicts deities as if they
>> exist but most religions acknowledge their lore as being morality
>> stories. Thor did not actually go fishing. As such most religions
>> would not need to change if it were proven that dieties don't exist.
>> If it were proven that deities exist that would trigger changes in the
>> morality stories told by most religions but would only break a few of
>> them.
>
> Nonsense. Have you not seen how neurotically delusional many
> church-goers are? Nearly all religious people I've ever met are
> convinced that their deities are real, and if you ask any group of
> people praying en masse at just about any Christian, Catholic, Jewish,
> Muslim, etc., church/mosque/etc., if their deities are real, then it's
> extremely unlikely that the answer is going to be "no."

Back to all the world being the JCISMR family again. it's not. They
just happen to include the two largest by population.

> Your argument makes no sense because people praying to their deities
> obviously believe that those deities are real (otherwise they wouldn't
> be praying to them in the first place).

The value of prayer as personal observation of deity is low. I started
writing that is doesn't count but it's floating point not binary. It
counts because it's easily observed. It counts less because for any one
experience of it the amount of life change is small. The more important
what happens when the person is the one who initiates the experience.
Grandma is dead. I have enough memories of Grandma that I can imagine
her reaction to many situations of life. I can talk to Grandma and
imagine her response. She does not actually respond, being dead.

Experiences that are not invited are more rare and have much greater
impact per experience. Go to a church service and you'll encounter some
who had a conversion experience and started showing up. For me it was
Odin showing up telling me to follow. I had to work through the down
side of what happens if it was a delusion before I decided to follow.
More centered, better notion of what's important in life, all the usual
results of a conversion experience. Plus have to make sure there's no
biblical inerrancy or concluding others are wrong. Okay follow then.
Not sure how I ended up mostly walking with Thor instead. Such is
polytheism I figure.

>> > Of course, the claim that "they can't all be right" obviously has
>> > credibility because it's logical due to the fact that many
>> > religions also make the claim that there can only be one deity -
>> > theirs.
>>
>> That's the problem of those few religions. For every person there can
>> be a different locus for what's right. So long as a religion does not
>> make the mistake of saying that people who practice other religions
>> are wrong they can all be right. So long as a religion tells its
>> lore as morality stores that do not depend on the deities existing
>> they can all be right.
>
> Yes, but this only works as long as religion and religious values are
> not imposed on others.

Exactly. Including agnosticism, atheism, anti-theism, whatever name
that happens along. But far and away the worst are the two or three
monotheistic faiths that have a long history of violently forcing their
views on others.

>> >> By observing their behavior.
>
>> > What behaviour differentiates these two?
>
>> Generally people who have had direct personal experience of deity are
>> more sane not less sane. It's the same as many who have had near
>> death experiences are more sane not less sane. Better centered.
>> More aware of what matters in life. Not all. Some become ecentric
>> in ways that are not harmful but that are kooky. More aware of what
>> matters in their life does not always match more aware of what
>> matters in the lives of others.
>
> Those are good points, but they're not the only issues.

If results didn't matter you'd have much better support. As it stands
- better centered, more aware of what matters in life - for most - Is
the most important issues.

> The problem
> with being delusional in one area is that there is often a great
> potential to be delusional in other areas as well. Not resolving the
> delusions is not helpful to the longevity of a healthy society because
> it often leads to disruption and conflict.

If Euclidean astronomy were never used again you'd have much better
support.

> By supporting delusional thoughts instead of helping people resolve
> their problems, one is actually "enabling" the deluded to continue in
> their delusions.

You're way into speculation at this point.

> People who imagine snakes all over the place are
> often regarded as "crazy" even when those snakes aren't hurting anyone,

Completely out in left field. Maybe you've never met anyone who is
actually schizophrenic.

> but when people imagine that a deity spoke to them it's generally
> accepted as "not crazy" -- this is obviously a double-standard that
> needs to be corrected sooner than later, at least for the benefit of
> future generations.

On the other hand you have definitely met people who have had direct
personal observation of deity. You just don't know it because they are
well centered people who have better than average attnetion on what
matters in life so it's never occured to you to ask them.

>> > In your opinion, is it also possible someone who "has personal
>> > experiences of deity" to also be schizophrenic?

> ...

>> People who have direct personal experience of deity stay sane. Some
>> stop being materialistic and end up poor cat ladies. Some work hard
>> and do well in the material world. All that I've met have been well
>> centered.
>
>> People who come down with schizonphrenia go nuts. They lose any
>> centering they had before the disease expressed itself.
>
>> If you've ever known someone who progressed from sane to schizophrenic
>> and someone else who has had direct personal experience of deity you
>> would be aware of just how laughable such a comparison is.
>
> So, by your logic, it's not possible for schizophrenic person to
> communicate with deities. I find this lacking in impartiality, unless
> there's some rule about dieites not being able to, or not wanting to,
> communicate with schizophrenic people? (If so, then they'd be in the
> same boat as amputees for whom "the power of prayer" simply never seems
> to work to their benefit.)

When someone sane has a vision it tends to have a beneficial effect that
lasts decades. The way to tell is to check in years later and see if
the beneficial effect is still in place. Psychologists study people who
have had near death experiences to see this effect. In recent years
there have been experiments with drugs to emulate such experiences to
see this effect - That's a fun one given the direction it leads. Might
some day lead to an actual proof that deities do not have external
existance. It's far from that at this point.

When someone's schizophrenic it's easy to tell they are seing things.
Years later mental damage by the visions will have overwhelmed any
benefit from the direct personal experience of deity. There is no
longer any way to tell a vision from a hallucination. But the way to
tell is that it's still in place years later so there's no way to reach
that conclusion.

So it's not about what the individual experiences it's about how others
observe the results. Which is why the results matter the most even if
they aren't the only issue.

A mind is like a parachute - It only works when it's open. But not so
open your brain falls out on the sidewalk in front of you.

The two of us pick very different optimal points for where the mind
works best. I take it both of us will observe the behavior of a
diagnosed schizophrenic and conclude that thinking his visions are real
counts as our brains falling out on the sidewalk in front of us.

Where we part ways is viewing certain experiences as like NDE ones.
Noticable change in behavior? Lasts for many years? Beneficial to your
life in some obvious way? Better centered? If I see all of those boxes
checked I don't care if the deity who triggered the experience exists,
whatever exist means. It just doesn't matter in comparison to those
questions. In the end the existance question is fun but secondary.
Like the way Euclidean astronomy works for pre-LORAN ship navigation.

>> >> >>> Free choice in one's personal beliefs, or lack thereof, etc.,
>> >> >>> is imperative for a healthy society's longevity.
>
>> >> >> And it tends to increase the religious membershep and fervor in
>> >> >> the free society.
>
>> >> > Bullshit.
>
>> >> So you've never been to the US. Gotcha.
>
>> > Actually, religion seems to be very popular in the USA, but this has
>> > more to do with childhood education.
>
>> That's quite the claim. Defense?
>
> That wasn't a claim, rather it was an observation. Do we really need
> census numbers or polling statistics to confirm that religion is very
> popular in the USA? It's common knowledge that it is.

You have the arrow of effect and cause pointing in the wrong direction
and you did not include education in your defense. Check the history of
colonial and then federal US. Religious groups fled Europe to practice
and their fervor increased. They forced their ways on the next
generation and fervor decreased. After the revolution the compromise
was reached to allow everyone choice so forcing relgion on people became
restricted to parents and children below the age of majority. Both
diversity and then fervor on the average increased but we can track
families across generations and see that generations tend to react
against being forced to attend church. Family histories and societal
trends are linked statistically. At any one time there are plenty of
families at each point along the spectrum with the societal trend being
determined by how many families are where in the process.

>> My claim is that the US has had freedom of religion built in from the
>> foundation. As a result people knew they could chose. Being able to
>> chose your own faith allowed many the chance to express fervor that
>> would not have been present in a land without choices. My defense is
>> that as freedom of religion has grown in other lands some have seen
>> growth in fervor others have seen growth in diversity. In the US
>> growth in diversity predated growth in fervor.
>
> Unfortunately that's not entirely true -- religious values are being
> forced upon the populace every time abortion is outlawed. Although it
> is in the first amendment of the USA constitution that secularism is
> essentially an inalienable right, these rules are effectively ignored
> on a regular basis.

Members of the majority religion keep pushing. People who favor the
founding principles keep pushing back. Sometimes progress is made by
one side and a religious motto appears on the currrency. Sometimes
progress is made by the other side and lots of religious groups buy up
and open churches or a park with a religious symbol is privatized.

The system is unstable. No political system is stable. To me it's
paraniod to say that a motto on currency and in the pledge means we are
now in a theocracy. But those are examples of the endless pressure in
place.

A theorcracy can happen. It has happened in other lands. If it does
happen it depends on which group took over to tell if my life is in
danger. I've read Koran Sura 9 verse 11 and I know the date was not
chosen randomly.

>> The morality story thing. Very Christian of you to base your stance
>> on the Christian insistence that the existence of deity is required
>> for a religion.
>
> I see, so you're seeing a Christian influence, but perhaps it's more a
> cultural influence because I am not, nor ever have been, a Christian.

I see you allow the Christians to define the field for you. You work
from their context whenever you refer to religion. You base your
conclusions on their systems. Cultural or not you have not left their
influence.

[duke]

On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 11:42:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>
>> Hey, if you believe that all that was, is and will be is only an accident, go
>> for it.
>
>Men have nipples and Duke says the cosmos was designed.

Men have nipples so they can jump-start a woman. The cosmos was created by
God..

[Budikka666]

On Sep 3, 6:08 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:

> The statement "I lack belief in a god" is a common position of atheists.

It's not a "common position", it's *the* defintion of atheism -
lacking belief in gods. You're seriously out of your depth if you
think it's just a "common position".

But before you can attack atheism, you need to estbalish your own

position, because atheism is the default position until and unless

there is solid evdience suggesting that there actually are gods. Got
that?

So why don't you and I formally debate your position that this god or
gods exist(s)?

Why don't you post your best five "evidences" for this creator god of
yours: either positive scientific evidence demonstrating that such a
being exists, or independent objective evidence demonstrating the
same?

Because if you can't do that all you have is hot air and that's not
going to convince anyone who has functional brain cells.

So go ahead, post your evidences, and let's you and me formally debate
them right here. I'll be more than happy to defend my atheistic
position. Can you defend your theistic one?

Let's see. Or you can keep on dishonestly pretending that you haven't
seen this message and thereby prove what a god-denying chicken you
truly are.

Now I see what a coward for Christ you are. You have fled from me in
two threads simultaneously, DENYING Christ! What a pathetic little
preacher you are.

Budikka
Budikka

[Les]

This defintion implies there is a god to 'believe in'.

It is a trick question asked by the theists which forces you to
accept there is a god to believe in. The answer 'no' does not
say you do not believe there is a god only that you do not believe
*in* it.

Only a question that specifically asked about belief of *existence*
is valid.

The standard defintion, whcih descibes what I am is:
"A atheist is a person who does not believe *in the existence of*
god or gods which of course the theist do not like using or
even acknowledging.

I much prefer: I do not accept claims by the religious that there is
what they call 'god'

I dismiss this claim when they always expect us to accept
it just on their say-so and tell us we are 'whiners' if we ask
for somethinhg a bit more persuative than that.

I have yet seen a theist ask us to believe their god exists because..
<evidence> it is always just becasue they say-so. Them seem to
have an exaggerated view of their importance and influence.

Several theist have adopted this stragegy for years some would
have thought they might have realised this by now and either
changed this useless strategy for something better or
given up.

but they cannot change it can they, when all the have is 'on my
say-so'.

>But before you can attack atheism, you need to estbalish your own
>position, because atheism is the default position until and unless
>there is solid evdience suggesting that there actually are gods. Got
>that?

>So why don't you and I formally debate your position that this god or
>gods exist(s)?

>Why don't you post your best five "evidences" for this creator god of
>yours: either positive scientific evidence demonstrating that such a
>being exists, or independent objective evidence demonstrating the
>same?
>
>Because if you can't do that all you have is hot air and that's not
>going to convince anyone who has functional brain cells.
>


>So go ahead, post your evidences, and let's you and me formally debate
>them right here. I'll be more than happy to defend my atheistic
>position. Can you defend your theistic one?
>
>Let's see. Or you can keep on dishonestly pretending that you haven't
>seen this message and thereby prove what a god-denying chicken you
>truly are.
>
>Now I see what a coward for Christ you are. You have fled from me in
>two threads simultaneously, DENYING Christ! What a pathetic little
>preacher you are.
>
>Budikka
>Budikka

Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has
come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged
that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing
and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals
and groups of all faiths and of none. "

- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Friday, 31 August 2012 19:48:59 UTC+1, Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>
> The first error in logic of that example - Billions of people have had
>

> direct personal experiences of deity. Noone or almost no one has had
>
> direct personal experience of invisible pink unicorns. Being
>
> experienced by many it is possible that deities exist, whatever exist
>
> ends up meaning in that context. Maybe calling billions of people
>
> delusional without evidence is your style but it's not my style. While
>
> I'll read articles on the topic of pattericity I'll wait for better
>
> evidence than "some people can't detect spritis therefore the ones who
>
> can are delusional".


There are optical illusions, such as the hollow face, that are experienced by virtually every sighted person under the right circumstances. That doesn't imply that what you see is real, only that the human brain works pretty much the same way for the vast majority of people.

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Sep 4, 12:51 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

> I'm not a physicist, I just watch the Big Bang
> Theory on occasion.

Speaking of comedies, have you ever watched "Strangers With Candy"?

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=strangers+with+candy&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Alex W.]

Never made it across the pond, as far as I can tell.

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Sep 5, 7:07 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 06:57:53 -0700 (PDT), Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> > On Sep 4, 12:51 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> I'm not a physicist, I just watch the Big Bang
> >> Theory on occasion.
>
> > Speaking of comedies, have you ever watched "Strangers With Candy"?
>

> >http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=strangers+with+ca...

>
> Never made it across the pond, as far as I can tell.

Hell of a lot funnier than BBT. Check it out.

[casey]

On Aug 31, 3:54 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> [...]
> I wrote about this concept of "absolute freedom" fairly recently:
>
> The most effective tool of psychological enslavement is the imposing of
> virtues and values, for one who completely lacks all virtues and values
> is entirely free.
>    -- Fidem Turbare (May 21, 2012)
>
> Note the clarity of that quotation (of my own words) in that I don't
> single out religion -- this is because I'm not being anti-theistic,
> rather I'm being impartial although I am very well aware of the fact
> that religions often encompass sets of virtues and values.  (Society in
> general does too through laws, regulations, and even cultural
> expectations to a fairly significant degree.)

Yes the cultural Nazi will sideline you if you are UnAmerican, or
in my case UnAustralian, in the things you like or dislike.

jc

[Yap]

On Sep 4, 8:56 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 8:46 PM, Smiler wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 02:00:41 -0400, Calvin Ramsey wrote:
>
> >> On 8/31/2012 10:27 PM, Smiler wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >>> First show evidence for 'spirits'. Beliefs are NOT evidence.
>
> >> The evidence shows that evidently you're not meant (predestined) to know
> >> what the evidence for God is. If you were, you wouldn't need to ask.
>
> > Thanks for your admission that you have no evidence, Cal.
>
> I know that's your easy way out of a jam, without having to admit you're
> wrong.
>
> I have evidence that God exists, and that he loves me.

Only you have evidence which can't be shown, then why would Smiler be
in a jam?

>
> Only thing is, only the elect are allowed to know what it is.

You offer yourself to be an elect, whereas we chose not to be.

>
> > <snip biblebabble>
>
> And you snipping those verses verifies that you know the Bible is
> self-authenticating.

Is there something called self-authentication?
The bible is a con story book.

>
> You can't hide it.

Nothing to hide.

>
> "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
> wills."
>      --Romans 9:18 (ESV)
>
> You're in the "reject pile" of humanity.

You have no humanity in your body.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Ha ha! Is it time to declare Godwin's Law so early in the thread?

Fortunately modern culture receives far more influence from television
than it does from local churches. We just need to try to encourage the
younger generation to watch more science-oriented programming if there
is to be continued hope of long-term progress for the world.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."
-- Adolf Hitler

[casey]

On Sep 8, 11:04 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 16:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>
> casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 3:54 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> > <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I wrote about this concept of "absolute freedom" fairly recently:
>
> > > The most effective tool of psychological enslavement is the
> > > imposing of virtues and values, for one who completely lacks all
> > > virtues and values is entirely free.
> > >    -- Fidem Turbare (May 21, 2012)
>
> > > Note the clarity of that quotation (of my own words) in that I don't
> > > single out religion -- this is because I'm not being anti-theistic,
> > > rather I'm being impartial although I am very well aware of the fact
> > > that religions often encompass sets of virtues and values.
> > >  (Society in general does too through laws, regulations, and even
> > > cultural expectations to a fairly significant degree.)
>
> > Yes the cultural Nazi will sideline you if you are UnAmerican, or
> > in my case UnAustralian, in the things you like or dislike.
>
> Ha ha!  Is it time to declare Godwin's Law so early in the thread?

It had to pop up sooner or later otherwise it wouldn't be a law?

Sometimes I refer the behavior as tyranny of the mob.

> Fortunately modern culture receives far more influence from television
> than it does from local churches.  We just need to try to encourage the
> younger generation to watch more science-oriented programming if there
> is to be continued hope of long-term progress for the world.

I think most people will never be interested in science (how things
work)
because they are mainly people orientated. Science is just some kind
of
magic that produces iphones, television, cars, medicine and so on ...

jc

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Maybe the science shows would be more popular if they included obscene
amounts of violence? For example, the host could be explaining
planetary orbits and then a husband and wife would enter the room in
the midst of a raging battle, the wife holding a knife and the husband
backing off while trying to calm her down -- they could exit through
another door, head upstairs, and then there'd be some loud banging
amidst the yelling and screaming. Finally one of the model planets, a
rather large one hanging from the ceiling, could fall and land on the
host; moments later he'd get up, brushing the dust from the busted
ceiling off his suit, then continue talking about the obrits while the
yelling fades away and a light fixture near the back falls down.

Do you think a science show filled with violent interruptions like this
would become popular? I do, and I'm pretty sure it would be extremely
popular at high school in particular.

(Any suggestions for other scenarios you'd like to see?)

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Every time you lie about science, Yahweh kills a kitten."
-- David Silverman, Defender of Civilisation

[Alex W.]

You're joking, right?
Hollywood's understanding of the laws of physics is about as deep
as any son-slaughtering goat-shagger's, and actual science and
factual programming made for TV is really quite rare.

[Les]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 12:56:09 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>

It's understanding of history is a bit shaky too. The film 'Patton'
is an absolute travesty of what really happened.

[Alex W.]

Let's not forget "Braveheart" or my favourite, "U 571", a film
that managed to misrepresent the capture of a German u-boat and
its Enigma machine so comprehensively that they edited out of
history not only the British but the Polish efforts in that
regard.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 12:56:09 +0100

Where Hollywood is concerned, you're definitely correct, and although I
didn't mention Hollywood it's clear now that I should have specifically
excluded it (I appologize for not in so doing).

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Those most in need of education are the most fearful of its effects."
-- Dr. Don Martin

[Smiler]

Science porn?
"E..gasp..equals..pant..m..thrust..c..thrust..squared..Oohhh..Ooooohhhh!!!"

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Ha ha! Make it a motivator for the curious teens: "Sorry kids, you'll
have to graduate from high school before you can watch this stuff."

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Physics is like sex -- sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it."
-- Richard P. Feynman

[Les]

Not here in the UK. Some of Brian Cox's excellent programmes about
the universe are still doing the rounds on the repeat channels.

>Where Hollywood is concerned, you're definitely correct, and although I
>didn't mention Hollywood it's clear now that I should have specifically
>excluded it (I appologize for not in so doing).

[BroilJAB]

The atheist is well to fear Him.
For He hath promised to Judge.
And that being eternal fire.

[Melzzzzz]

I have fear of nuclear weapons. Christ, if ever existed,
was harmless, and crucified by civilization that
used spears.

[Malcolm McMahon]

No, the key to getting an audience (particularly children) to watch a science show is explosions. Any pretext will do or none. Destruction, generally, helps but explosions are best.

There's a show on in the UK at the moment called "Braniac", which is a bit of science squeezed in between gratuetously blowing things up.

If you want to get people interested in evolution or biology, dinosaurs are best.

As a kid the whole goal of our scientific fun was trying to make a decent bang. Now that they are so careful about what chemicals kids can get their hands on I don't know where the next generation of Chemists will come from.

[Alex W.]

A few of his programmes as well as some decent stuff under the
"Horizon" label do get broadcast on Frreview channels, but other
than the big-budget nature programmes on the Beeb (which I don't
really consider to be "science" so much as an odd form of
tourism) there really isn't much else at all.