On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:05:04 -0700
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:24:09 -0500
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:54:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>> As far as friendship is concerned, I'm puzzled that you consider me
>>> to be one, for I don't know you personally and so there is no
>>> mutual friendship beyond acquaintancy through this "alt.atheism"
>>> newsgroup.
>> He is a Christian. He follows a different path than you do.
> Atheism isn't a path that one follows.
I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it may
not be obvious to some, so here goes...
Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
The path of religion is typically a deviation from one's nature as the
victim becomes enslaved by the values and virtues of their chosen
religious poison. Friedrich Nietzsche once eloquently (as he was often
very skilled in his use of vernacular) explained that adherence to
virtues is actually a form of self-imposed slavery, from which I
realized an additional perspective on religion as being a collection of
these virtues henceforth justifying the classification of it (religion)
as an overwhelming force for its victims and willful followers alike.
When one abandons their religion, they can be said to be "reverting to
atheism," and "revert" is a very important word to use because it
confirms, or at least hints at, the fact that atheism is, indeed,
intrinsically natural.
The inherent freedom of atheism is, naturally, the reason it is not a
path that one follows, for free thinking is one of atheism's
fundamentals, and every atheist is free to choose at a whim to "follow
any crowd" without necessarily having to remain committed to their
decision for any particular duration.
Freedom of action and freedom of thought are the undeniable facets of
atheism -- if you are religious, you always have the option to revert.
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Let's debate, and build!"
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason
In article <20120804100007.f7f9cfcc3afb8414dd680...@fidemturbare.com>, godd...@fidemturbare.com says...
> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
> of reality.
I think If you begin with the idea "natural state of reality" the only direction in whatever that may follow is 'down'.
There is a difference between the states, natural or otherwise, of some one who is innocently godless and one who is atheist. An pathless atheist has had to have made a decision to 'a' the 'theos' which, sorry, constructs a sort of prison of a-ist dogma. You are doing little more here but re-enforcing a god-as-absolute idea in order to say you do not believe in it. Bad move.
Also there exists no historical foundation for you to lay claim upon a 'natural free state'. Religion in it's many forms is too embedded in all of human world history. Your 'a' group would have people believe that the entire human species has been forced into religious slavery since it's beginning.
What you want, maybe, is a argument based upon a trend in development supported by other examples. For instance, a significant shift in human perception took place after the sun stoped moving around the earth. A massive re-think has taken place since and because of the printing press and after the earth stopped being flat.
Thoughts change. You are keeping the gods alive in order to refute their existence.
-- "The space ship hung in the air exactly like a brick does not"
> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
> The path of religion is typically a deviation from one's nature as the
> victim becomes enslaved by the values and virtues of their chosen
> religious poison. Friedrich Nietzsche once eloquently (as he was often
> very skilled in his use of vernacular) explained that adherence to
> virtues is actually a form of self-imposed slavery, from which I
> realized an additional perspective on religion as being a collection of
> these virtues henceforth justifying the classification of it (religion)
> as an overwhelming force for its victims and willful followers alike.
> When one abandons their religion, they can be said to be "reverting to
> atheism," and "revert" is a very important word to use because it
> confirms, or at least hints at, the fact that atheism is, indeed,
> intrinsically natural.
> The inherent freedom of atheism is, naturally, the reason it is not a
> path that one follows, for free thinking is one of atheism's
> fundamentals, and every atheist is free to choose at a whim to "follow
> any crowd" without necessarily having to remain committed to their
> decision for any particular duration.
> Freedom of action and freedom of thought are the undeniable facets of
> atheism -- if you are religious, you always have the option to revert.
goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:05:04 -0700
>"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
><godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:24:09 -0500
>> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:54:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>>> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>> As far as friendship is concerned, I'm puzzled that you consider me
>>>> to be one, for I don't know you personally and so there is no
>>>> mutual friendship beyond acquaintancy through this "alt.atheism"
>>>> newsgroup.
>>> He is a Christian. He follows a different path than you do.
>> Atheism isn't a path that one follows.
>I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it may
>not be obvious to some, so here goes...
>Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
>of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
>are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
Sorry, the natural free state DEMANDS the existence of a Supreme Creator.
Existence mandates creation. You can take the position that a doorknob is your
creator, but it's still a supreme something that started it all.
Atheism says there is no creator. Now there is no way, no support to mandate
that a "nothing" brought all into existence. The world of astrophysics well
states that there was firstly nothing to include "outer space", then instantly a
something of infinite size appeared in nothingness and expanded outward to form
our universe as it is seen today, some 13.7 billion years ago.
That reduces your beliefs to an unsupported desire.
>The path of religion is typically a deviation from one's nature as the
>victim becomes enslaved by the values and virtues of their chosen
>religious poison. Friedrich Nietzsche once eloquently (as he was often
>very skilled in his use of vernacular) explained that adherence to
>virtues is actually a form of self-imposed slavery, from which I
>realized an additional perspective on religion as being a collection of
>these virtues henceforth justifying the classification of it (religion)
>as an overwhelming force for its victims and willful followers alike.
>When one abandons their religion, they can be said to be "reverting to
>atheism," and "revert" is a very important word to use because it
>confirms, or at least hints at, the fact that atheism is, indeed,
>intrinsically natural.
No, to revert means that a decision was already made and now is being rejected
and thus going back to non-understanding. Atheism is a decision, not a natural
occurrence. Babies are not atheists as they have not yet been able to declare
their position. And just as Chrisitan baptism is forever, there is undo what is
already permanent.
>The inherent freedom of atheism is, naturally, the reason it is not a
>path that one follows, for free thinking is one of atheism's
>fundamentals, and every atheist is free to choose at a whim to "follow
>any crowd" without necessarily having to remain committed to their
>decision for any particular duration.
Walking in the hot coals is free thinking. Walking with God is also free
thinking. One chooses freely, but choice does not eliminate consequence.
>Freedom of action and freedom of thought are the undeniable facets of
>atheism -- if you are religious, you always have the option to revert.
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.
********************************************
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>In article <20120804100007.f7f9cfcc3afb8414dd680...@fidemturbare.com>, >godd...@fidemturbare.com says...
>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
>> of reality.
>I think If you begin with the idea "natural state of reality" the only >direction in whatever that may follow is 'down'.
>There is a difference between the states, natural or otherwise, of some >one who is innocently godless and one who is atheist. An pathless >atheist has had to have made a decision to 'a' the 'theos' which, sorry, >constructs a sort of prison of a-ist dogma. You are doing little more >here but re-enforcing a god-as-absolute idea in order to say you do not >believe in it. Bad move.
>Also there exists no historical foundation for you to lay claim upon a >'natural free state'. Religion in it's many forms is too embedded in all >of human world history. Your 'a' group would have people believe that >the entire human species has been forced into religious slavery since >it's beginning.
>What you want, maybe, is a argument based upon a trend in development >supported by other examples. For instance, a significant shift in human >perception took place after the sun stoped moving around the earth. A >massive re-think has taken place since and because of the printing press >and after the earth stopped being flat.
>Thoughts change. You are keeping the gods alive in order to refute their >existence.
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.
********************************************
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:05:04 -0700
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:24:09 -0500
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:54:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> >> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> As far as friendship is concerned, I'm puzzled that you consider me
> >>> to be one, for I don't know you personally and so there is no
> >>> mutual friendship beyond acquaintancy through this "alt.atheism"
> >>> newsgroup.
> >> He is a Christian. He follows a different path than you do.
> > Atheism isn't a path that one follows.
> I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it may
> not be obvious to some, so here goes...
> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
IMO one is born UNtheistic just as one is born Unbelieving every
thing other than the singularity that one is the center and 'raison
d'être' of the whole universe. Maturation involves learning otherwise.
'Maturalization (rationalization) is the step furthur in which one
rejects being brainwashed into a belief that one must be is the
'raison d'etre' of at least one of a plurality of invented
Singularities (gods).
> The path of religion is typically a deviation from one's nature as the
> victim becomes enslaved by the values and virtues of their chosen
> religious poison. Friedrich Nietzsche once eloquently (as he was often
> very skilled in his use of vernacular) explained that adherence to
> virtues is actually a form of self-imposed slavery, from which I
> realized an additional perspective on religion as being a collection of
> these virtues henceforth justifying the classification of it (religion)
> as an overwhelming force for its victims and willful followers alike.
I agree. But it seems to me that all social philosophies, including
non-religious Humanism, attempt to collect and instruct in virtues
that direct human behaviour.
> When one abandons their religion, they can be said to be "reverting to
> atheism," and "revert" is a very important word to use because it
> confirms, or at least hints at, the fact that atheism is, indeed,
> intrinsically natural.
> The inherent freedom of atheism is, naturally, the reason it is not aM
> path that one follows, for free thinking is one of atheism's
> fundamentals, and every atheist is free to choose at a whim to "follow
> any crowd" without necessarily having to remain committed to their
> decision for any particular duration.
> Freedom of action and freedom of thought are the undeniable facets of
> atheism -- if you are religious, you always have the option to revert.
> I find that a bit of a stretch. Atheism may be an indication of general free-thinking but the extremism of many communist party members surely gives the lie to that. :)
>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural
>> state of reality.
> I think If you begin with the idea "natural state of reality" the
> only direction in whatever that may follow is 'down'.
Down from where? Would the same apply in the absence of a signficant
gravitational field (such as somewhere in outer space)?
> There is a difference between the states, natural or otherwise, of
> some one who is innocently godless and one who is atheist. An
> pathless atheist has had to have made a decision to 'a' the 'theos'
> which, sorry, constructs a sort of prison of a-ist dogma.
I did not claim that atheism is "pathless," but rather that it is not a
path that one follows, for atheism has no leader and does not provide
dogmatic leadership that can be followed.
This is the definition of atheism that I'm using: "The absense of
belief in deities and supernatural agents."
There is no dogmatic element in atheism, for it is merely a positionless
classification.
> You are doing little more here but re-enforcing a god-as-absolute
> idea in order to say you do not believe in it. Bad move.
I made no such statement, nor implication, about any deity. I have,
however, been responding to those who are presenting that premise.
My suspicion is that you may be applying my atheism as anti-theism or
agnosticism, which could explain why you concluded that my response was
somehow a re-enforcement of all-knowing and all-powerful deities.
> Also there exists no historical foundation for you to lay claim upon
> a 'natural free state'. Religion in it's many forms is too embedded
> in all of human world history. Your 'a' group would have people
> believe that the entire human species has been forced into religious
> slavery since it's beginning.
You're assuming that religion is embedded in all of human world
history, but this is invalidated by many facts including, most
importantly, the logical fact that religion was created and documented
by people who obviously had to exist before they created it.
Which religion are you implying was embedded in all of human world
history? There are at least 50-60 different mainstream religions
throughout the world, all of which were created by people. I do see a
lot of Hellenic Polytheism thanks to Ancient Greece, and I also see a
lot of Buddhist and Hindu ideas throughout Asia. Am I missing the one
you're thinking of (ha ha)? There are many more.
> What you want, maybe, is a argument based upon a trend in development > supported by other examples. For instance, a significant shift in
> human perception took place after the sun stoped moving around the
> earth. A massive re-think has taken place since and because of the
> printing press and after the earth stopped being flat.
I don't want an argument -- I want to enjoy freedom without having to
contend with people trying to impose their corrupt moral views on me.
The sun didn't stop moving around the earth, rather people just stopped
assuming that it did due to reliable scientific evidence.
The earth didn't stop being flat, rather people just stopped assuming
that it was due to reliable scientific evidence.
> Thoughts change. You are keeping the gods alive in order to refute
> their existence.
I am responding to attempts by others to impose their corrupt moral
views on me. Invariably, since those views are primarily theistic my
refutations generally take on that context.
Comic books, story books, folklore, etc., all do very well to keep the
ideas of gods alive. Do understand, however, that I am not refuting
the eixstence of deities although I have been questioning claims of
their existence (which doesn't conflict with me being an atheist) when
people present their claims as factual.
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke
down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God
or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time ... the
universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by
anything outside itself; it would neither be created nor destroyed, it
would just be ... what place, then, for a creator?"
-- Dr. Stephen W. Hawking (1994)
>>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural
>>> state of reality.
>> I think If you begin with the idea "natural state of reality" the
>> only direction in whatever that may follow is 'down'.
>Down from where? Would the same apply in the absence of a signficant
>gravitational field (such as somewhere in outer space)?
You're the one that said it. Why don't you answer?.
>> There is a difference between the states, natural or otherwise, of
>> some one who is innocently godless and one who is atheist. An
>> pathless atheist has had to have made a decision to 'a' the 'theos'
>> which, sorry, constructs a sort of prison of a-ist dogma.
>I did not claim that atheism is "pathless," but rather that it is not a
>path that one follows, for atheism has no leader and does not provide
>dogmatic leadership that can be followed.
You well implied "down".
>This is the definition of atheism that I'm using: "The absense of
>belief in deities and supernatural agents."
>http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheism.pl >There is no dogmatic element in atheism, for it is merely a positionless
>classification.
And zero evidence to boot.
>> You are doing little more here but re-enforcing a god-as-absolute
>> idea in order to say you do not believe in it. Bad move.
>I made no such statement, nor implication, about any deity. I have,
>however, been responding to those who are presenting that premise.
>My suspicion is that you may be applying my atheism as anti-theism or
>agnosticism, which could explain why you concluded that my response was
>somehow a re-enforcement of all-knowing and all-powerful deities.
An atheist REJECTS/DENIES the existence of God. Quit playing your word games.
>> Also there exists no historical foundation for you to lay claim upon
>> a 'natural free state'. Religion in it's many forms is too embedded
>> in all of human world history. Your 'a' group would have people
>> believe that the entire human species has been forced into religious
>> slavery since it's beginning.
>You're assuming that religion is embedded in all of human world
>history, but this is invalidated by many facts including, most
>importantly, the logical fact that religion was created and documented
>by people who obviously had to exist before they created it.
>Which religion are you implying was embedded in all of human world
>history? There are at least 50-60 different mainstream religions
>throughout the world, all of which were created by people.
ONE that wasn't.
> I do see a
>lot of Hellenic Polytheism thanks to Ancient Greece, and I also see a
>lot of Buddhist and Hindu ideas throughout Asia. Am I missing the one
>you're thinking of (ha ha)? There are many more.
>> What you want, maybe, is a argument based upon a trend in development >> supported by other examples. For instance, a significant shift in
>> human perception took place after the sun stoped moving around the
>> earth. A massive re-think has taken place since and because of the
>> printing press and after the earth stopped being flat. >I don't want an argument -- I want to enjoy freedom without having to
>contend with people trying to impose their corrupt moral views on me.
Why not? You are trying to impose your corrupt moral views on us.
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.
********************************************
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Zinnic <zinnic....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 4, 12:00 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
><godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:05:04 -0700
>> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
>> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:24:09 -0500
>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:54:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>> >> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >>> As far as friendship is concerned, I'm puzzled that you consider me
>> >>> to be one, for I don't know you personally and so there is no
>> >>> mutual friendship beyond acquaintancy through this "alt.atheism"
>> >>> newsgroup.
>> >> He is a Christian. He follows a different path than you do.
>> > Atheism isn't a path that one follows.
>> I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it may
>> not be obvious to some, so here goes...
>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
>> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
>> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
>IMO one is born UNtheistic just as one is born Unbelieving
NO. It's a matter of unknowing. Theism/atheism is a decision made later on in
life with knowledge and evidence to use .
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.
********************************************
duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:01:30 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400
> >Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <20120804100007.f7f9cfcc3afb8414dd680...@fidemturbare.com>,
> >> godd...@fidemturbare.com says...
> >>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural
> >>> state of reality.
> >> I think If you begin with the idea "natural state of reality" the
> >> only direction in whatever that may follow is 'down'.
> >Down from where? Would the same apply in the absence of a signficant
> >gravitational field (such as somewhere in outer space)?
> You're the one that said it. Why don't you answer?.
No, Zerkon wrote it, and I'm hoping that he (or anyone) will answer it.
> >> There is a difference between the states, natural or otherwise, of
> >> some one who is innocently godless and one who is atheist. An
> >> pathless atheist has had to have made a decision to 'a' the 'theos'
> >> which, sorry, constructs a sort of prison of a-ist dogma.
> >I did not claim that atheism is "pathless," but rather that it is
> >not a path that one follows, for atheism has no leader and does not
> >provide dogmatic leadership that can be followed.
> >There is no dogmatic element in atheism, for it is merely a
> >positionless classification.
> And zero evidence to boot.
Correct, for evidence is not required for an absence of belief.
> >> You are doing little more here but re-enforcing a god-as-absolute
> >> idea in order to say you do not believe in it. Bad move.
> >I made no such statement, nor implication, about any deity. I have,
> >however, been responding to those who are presenting that premise.
> >My suspicion is that you may be applying my atheism as anti-theism or
> >agnosticism, which could explain why you concluded that my response
> >was somehow a re-enforcement of all-knowing and all-powerful deities.
> An atheist REJECTS/DENIES the existence of God. Quit playing your
> word games.
There is no word game being played here, for denying the existence of
deities is anti-theistic. It is the "absence of belief" in deities that
is merely atheistic.
> >> Also there exists no historical foundation for you to lay claim
> >> upon a 'natural free state'. Religion in it's many forms is too
> >> embedded in all of human world history. Your 'a' group would have
> >> people believe that the entire human species has been forced into
> >> religious slavery since it's beginning.
> >You're assuming that religion is embedded in all of human world
> >history, but this is invalidated by many facts including, most
> >importantly, the logical fact that religion was created and
> >documented by people who obviously had to exist before they created
> >it.
> >Which religion are you implying was embedded in all of human world
> >history? There are at least 50-60 different mainstream religions
> >throughout the world, all of which were created by people.
> ONE that wasn't.
I challenge you to provide Logical, Objective, Verifiable Evidence
(L.O.V.E.) for that assertion.
> > I do see a
> >lot of Hellenic Polytheism thanks to Ancient Greece, and I also see a
> >lot of Buddhist and Hindu ideas throughout Asia. Am I missing the
> >one you're thinking of (ha ha)? There are many more.
> >> What you want, maybe, is a argument based upon a trend in
> >> development supported by other examples. For instance, a
> >> significant shift in human perception took place after the sun
> >> stoped moving around the earth. A massive re-think has taken place
> >> since and because of the printing press and after the earth
> >> stopped being flat.
> >I don't want an argument -- I want to enjoy freedom without having to
> >contend with people trying to impose their corrupt moral views on me.
> Why not? You are trying to impose your corrupt moral views on us.
I am? How? What views would those be?
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person
in love."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:50:08 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 8/4/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it may
>> not be obvious to some, so here goes...
>Painus please pay attention-
Paying attention as requested by UseNet trollerbot, Harlow.
>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
>> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
>> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
So those who do not deviate from this so-called natural state cannot
be said to follow any path?
Not for anything, but I would have to disagree, Fiddy. On the issue
of theism vs. atheism, there are at least two possible main paths to
follow...
On the theist path, the followers perhaps irrationally accept a deity
or deities, supernatural beings with incredible powers. They follow
this path based upon faith and faith alone.
On the atheist path, the followers perhaps more rationally reject
and/or lack belief in a deity or deities, or any "beings" that likely
arise from other-than-natural sources. However, the atheist pathway
is *still* based upon faith... faith that theists are wrong.
Walk either path, it's your choice, but let it be known that either
path produces an equal possibility/probability of being right or being
wrong.
There is a third path walked by the true skeptic. Be suspicious of
both theism *and* atheism, because neither is based on cold, hard
facts in evidence. Skeptics *require* facts, not faith. This is the
most rational path of the three main paths brought about by the issue
of theism vs. atheism.
>> The path of religion is typically a deviation from one's nature as the
>> victim becomes enslaved by the values and virtues of their chosen
>> religious poison. Friedrich Nietzsche once eloquently (as he was often
>> very skilled in his use of vernacular) explained that adherence to
>> virtues is actually a form of self-imposed slavery, from which I
>> realized an additional perspective on religion as being a collection of
>> these virtues henceforth justifying the classification of it (religion)
>> as an overwhelming force for its victims and willful followers alike.
>> When one abandons their religion, they can be said to be "reverting to
>> atheism," and "revert" is a very important word to use because it
>> confirms, or at least hints at, the fact that atheism is, indeed,
>> intrinsically natural.
>> The inherent freedom of atheism is, naturally, the reason it is not a
>> path that one follows, for free thinking is one of atheism's
>> fundamentals, and every atheist is free to choose at a whim to "follow
>> any crowd" without necessarily having to remain committed to their
>> decision for any particular duration.
>> Freedom of action and freedom of thought are the undeniable facets of
>> atheism -- if you are religious, you always have the option to revert.
Religion is ugly and disgusting. It fosters blind sheep who would
kill even those of their own faith if they happen to live on the
opposite side of some line drawn on a map.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. To be truly
free, one must be truly skeptical of any ideal that is based upon
faith and not upon cold, hard facts. Freedom is primarily a mental
state that can be found in the most secure confines of the worst
prisons. It does not rely on the religious or non-religious bent of a
person. Freedom relies solely upon the mental acceptance that nothing
nor anyone can restrict one's thoughts.
So even the atheistic restriction that one absolutely *must* either
believe or lack belief in a deity or deities tries and often succeeds
to limit one's freedom. The true skeptic is free, truly free, to
choose not to choose either theism or atheism. While one must be true
and the other must be fantasy, there is just no way to tell *which* is
right and *which* is wrong. It's basically a 50-50 guess.
goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 06:16:17 -0500
>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:01:30 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400
>> >Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <20120804100007.f7f9cfcc3afb8414dd680...@fidemturbare.com>,
>> >> godd...@fidemturbare.com says...
>> >>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural
>> >>> state of reality.
>> >> I think If you begin with the idea "natural state of reality" the
>> >> only direction in whatever that may follow is 'down'.
>> >Down from where? Would the same apply in the absence of a signficant
>> >gravitational field (such as somewhere in outer space)?
>> You're the one that said it. Why don't you answer?.
>No, Zerkon wrote it, and I'm hoping that he (or anyone) will answer it.
>> >> There is a difference between the states, natural or otherwise, of
>> >> some one who is innocently godless and one who is atheist. An
>> >> pathless atheist has had to have made a decision to 'a' the 'theos'
>> >> which, sorry, constructs a sort of prison of a-ist dogma.
>> >I did not claim that atheism is "pathless," but rather that it is
>> >not a path that one follows, for atheism has no leader and does not
>> >provide dogmatic leadership that can be followed.
>> >There is no dogmatic element in atheism, for it is merely a
>> >positionless classification.
>> And zero evidence to boot.
>Correct, for evidence is not required for an absence of belief.
But is mandated for a direct denial of existence.
>> >> What you want, maybe, is a argument based upon a trend in
>> >> development supported by other examples. For instance, a
>> >> significant shift in human perception took place after the sun
>> >> stoped moving around the earth. A massive re-think has taken place
>> >> since and because of the printing press and after the earth
>> >> stopped being flat.
>> >I don't want an argument -- I want to enjoy freedom without having to
>> >contend with people trying to impose their corrupt moral views on me.
>> Why not? You are trying to impose your corrupt moral views on us.
>I am? How? What views would those be?
Queer marriage, abortion, freedom from religion.
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.
********************************************
On Aug 7, 7:20 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> The true skeptic is free, truly free, to
> choose not to choose either theism or atheism.
Not if the skeptic is rational. It is not rational to believe in
fairies.
Our choices are not free choices they are the best choices we can make
as determined by some method of selecting choices.
They can be determined by rational thought or by wishful thinking.
> While one must be true
> and the other must be fantasy, there is just no way to tell *which* is
> right and *which* is wrong. It's basically a 50-50 guess.
Religion is an act of faith and wishful thinking; it is not an act of
a rational skeptic.
Discussion subject changed to "Freedom or Death -- Re: Atheism isn't a path that one follows -- Re: nn" by Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
>> Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
Painius' sentence describes "death," for "nothing left to lose" would
be in conflict with having one or more choices -- upon experiencing
death, one truly has "nothing left to lose."
> "Freedom is a state of mind, not a condition" -HVAC
With a state of mind, one at least has choices about what to ponder.
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Death may be the greatest of all human blessings."
-- Socrates of Athens
duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:12:55 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 06:16:17 -0500
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:01:30 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> >> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400
> >> >Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <20120804100007.f7f9cfcc3afb8414dd680...@fidemturbare.com>,
> >> >> godd...@fidemturbare.com says...
> >> >>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the
> >> >>> natural state of reality.
> >> >> I think If you begin with the idea "natural state of reality"
> >> >> the only direction in whatever that may follow is 'down'.
> >> >Down from where? Would the same apply in the absence of a
> >> >signficant gravitational field (such as somewhere in outer space)?
> >> You're the one that said it. Why don't you answer?.
> >No, Zerkon wrote it, and I'm hoping that he (or anyone) will answer
> >it.
> >> >> There is a difference between the states, natural or otherwise,
> >> >> of some one who is innocently godless and one who is atheist. An
> >> >> pathless atheist has had to have made a decision to 'a' the
> >> >> 'theos' which, sorry, constructs a sort of prison of a-ist
> >> >> dogma.
> >> >I did not claim that atheism is "pathless," but rather that it is
> >> >not a path that one follows, for atheism has no leader and does
> >> >not provide dogmatic leadership that can be followed.
> >> >There is no dogmatic element in atheism, for it is merely a
> >> >positionless classification.
> >> And zero evidence to boot.
> >Correct, for evidence is not required for an absence of belief.
> But is mandated for a direct denial of existence.
That's correct. With regard to atheism it's a bit of a non-sequitur
since atheism is the "absence of belief in deities and supernatural
agents," but in the context of someone making an anti-theistic claim it
would be reasonable for it to apply.
> >> >> What you want, maybe, is a argument based upon a trend in
> >> >> development supported by other examples. For instance, a
> >> >> significant shift in human perception took place after the sun
> >> >> stoped moving around the earth. A massive re-think has taken
> >> >> place since and because of the printing press and after the
> >> >> earth stopped being flat.
> >> >I don't want an argument -- I want to enjoy freedom without
> >> >having to contend with people trying to impose their corrupt
> >> >moral views on me.
> >> Why not? You are trying to impose your corrupt moral views on us.
> >I am? How? What views would those be?
> Queer marriage,
I am not for nor against gay marriage (you called it "queer marriage"),
and I have never imposed gay marriages on anyone.
> abortion,
Although I do advocate for the free and informed choice to proceed with
the early termination of a fetus during a pregnancy (you called it
"abortion"), I have never imposed this on anyone because that would
contradict the very freedom I advocate.
In addition to being a position of anti-freedom, it seems perverted to
me that so many men desire oppressive control over any women's genitals
and reproductive organs from circumcision to pregnancy.
> freedom from religion.
How does one impose freedom?
-- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The important thing is to not stop questioning."
-- Dr. Albert Einstein
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> With a state of mind, one at least has choices about what to ponder.
> -- > Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> "Death may be the greatest of all human blessings."
> -- Socrates of Athens
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not
rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather
than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts
science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we
respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for
their own sake.
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 05:20:14 -0400, Painius wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:50:08 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 8/4/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
>>wrote:
>>> I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it
>>> may not be obvious to some, so here goes...
>>Painus please pay attention-
> Paying attention as requested by UseNet trollerbot, Harlow.
>>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
>>> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
>>> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
> So those who do not deviate from this so-called natural state cannot be
> said to follow any path?
> Not for anything, but I would have to disagree, Fiddy. On the issue of
> theism vs. atheism, there are at least two possible main paths to
> follow...
> On the theist path, the followers perhaps irrationally accept a deity or
> deities, supernatural beings with incredible powers. They follow this
> path based upon faith and faith alone.
> On the atheist path, the followers perhaps more rationally reject and/or
> lack belief in a deity or deities, or any "beings" that likely arise
> from other-than-natural sources. However, the atheist pathway is
> *still* based upon faith... faith that theists are wrong.
Lie. No faith involved. Theists are atheist with regard to all deity constructs but theirs. Atheists don't give the particular theist's deity
(ies) special treatment. Theists are often challenged to provide a coherent and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string as well as objective supporting evidence. The echoing silence is deafening.
> Walk either path, it's your choice, but let it be known that either path
> produces an equal possibility/probability of being right or being wrong.
Another lie.
> There is a third path walked by the true skeptic. Be suspicious of both
> theism *and* atheism, because neither is based on cold, hard facts in
> evidence.
Third lie.
>Skeptics *require* facts, not faith. > So even the atheistic restriction that one absolutely *must* either
> believe or lack belief in a deity or deities tries and often succeeds to
> limit one's freedom. The true skeptic is free, truly free, to choose
> not to choose either theism or atheism. While one must be true and the
> other must be fantasy, there is just no way to tell *which* is right and
> *which* is wrong. It's basically a 50-50 guess.
> Be suspicious. Be skeptical. Be truly "free".
Which is why theists are so questioned and challenged.
Stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
> > believe or lack belief in a deity or deities tries and often succeeds to
> > limit one's freedom. The true skeptic is free, truly free, to choose
> > not to choose either theism or atheism. While one must be true and the
> > other must be fantasy, there is just no way to tell *which* is right and
> > *which* is wrong. It's basically a 50-50 guess.
> > Be suspicious. Be skeptical. Be truly "free".Which is why theists are so questioned and challenged.[]
Religion claims that immorality always springs from a lack of religion,
but the facts prove just the opposite. Christianity has never been
stronger than it is today, Christians have churches in every community,
they monopolize radio and television time with religious propaganda,
they have forced their religion into our government, our laws, and into
our schools. They have done these things against the Constitution of the
United States, and against the most basic and sacred rights of all other
Americans. Like a sinking ship, with water rushing in and filling every
compartment where it was not supposed to be, so religion has attacked
our nation, rushed in where it was not supposed to be, where it has no
business to be, silencing all opposition, all opposing views, poisoning
the wells of our knowledge, and endangering the very roots of our
nation.
Christianity is that strong today, and yet we have not achieved any
respectable amount of morality in this country. Nowhere is the failure
of Christian morality more evident than in America. During the same time
that Christianity has been growing ever stronger and ever richer, over
the past thirty years or so, the use of harmful drugs has became a
national scandal, the crime rate has been climbing ever higher and ever
faster, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, and during that time our
nation has been embroiled in more wars and international conflicts than
in any other similar time period in its history. During that time, our
nation was also getting its 5000 or so weird religious cults, a
byproduct of Christian indoctrination. Right to-day we have the highest
narcotics abuse rate, the highest crime rate, the highest divorce rate,
and the highest 'religion rate' that we have ever had in the history of
this nation. What does Christianity say about these facts and how to
cure them? They tell us we need more religion and they are determined to
force it upon us. Christianity feels so strong today that it is moving
into politics to try to force its failing morality upon every American
through a Christian Dictatorship and a new Dark Age.
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 02:09:00 GMT, Stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 05:20:14 -0400, Painius wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:50:08 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 8/4/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
>>>wrote:
>>>> I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it
>>>> may not be obvious to some, so here goes...
>>>Painus please pay attention-
>> Paying attention as requested by UseNet trollerbot, Harlow.
>>>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
>>>> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
>>>> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
>> So those who do not deviate from this so-called natural state cannot be
>> said to follow any path?
>> Not for anything, but I would have to disagree, Fiddy. On the issue of
>> theism vs. atheism, there are at least two possible main paths to
>> follow...
>> On the theist path, the followers perhaps irrationally accept a deity or
>> deities, supernatural beings with incredible powers. They follow this
>> path based upon faith and faith alone.
>> On the atheist path, the followers perhaps more rationally reject and/or
>> lack belief in a deity or deities, or any "beings" that likely arise
>> from other-than-natural sources. However, the atheist pathway is
>> *still* based upon faith... faith that theists are wrong.
>Lie. No faith involved. Theists are atheist with regard to all deity >constructs but theirs. Atheists don't give the particular theist's deity
>(ies) special treatment. Theists are often challenged to provide a >coherent and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string as well as >objective supporting evidence. The echoing silence is deafening.
Pain-in-arse knows this because it has been pointed out to him many
times already.
>> Walk either path, it's your choice, but let it be known that either path
>> produces an equal possibility/probability of being right or being wrong.
>Another lie.
He knows there's no choice.And it's not "either path" either - just
theists who expect everybody else to take their beliefs seriously.
He also knows that when one has no reason to believe something then
one doesn't.
>> There is a third path walked by the true skeptic. Be suspicious of both
>> theism *and* atheism, because neither is based on cold, hard facts in
>> evidence.
>Third lie.
He knows this too.
>>Skeptics *require* facts, not faith.
>> So even the atheistic restriction that one absolutely *must* either
>> believe or lack belief in a deity or deities tries and often succeeds to
>> limit one's freedom. The true skeptic is free, truly free, to choose
>> not to choose either theism or atheism. While one must be true and the
>> other must be fantasy, there is just no way to tell *which* is right and
>> *which* is wrong. It's basically a 50-50 guess.
He knows there is no choice as well because you can't turn belief on
or off like an electric light switch.
>> Be suspicious. Be skeptical. Be truly "free".
>Which is why theists are so questioned and challenged.
Why can't these loonies who single out the theist's god for special treatment, stop telling falsehoods about those who don't to their
faces?
> On Aug 7, 7:20 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
>> The true skeptic is free, truly free, to
>> choose not to choose either theism or atheism.
> Not if the skeptic is rational. It is not rational to believe in
> fairies.
> Our choices are not free choices they are the best choices we can make
> as determined by some method of selecting choices.
> They can be determined by rational thought or by wishful thinking.
But he said 'true' skeptic. That should have been a tipoff.
>> While one must be true
>> and the other must be fantasy, there is just no way to tell *which* is
>> right and *which* is wrong. It's basically a 50-50 guess.
> Religion is an act of faith and wishful thinking; it is not an act of
> a rational skeptic.
>> Be suspicious. Be skeptical. Be truly "free".
>> --
>> Indelibly yours,
>> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ >> "Never ask for permission; just be ready to ask for forgiveness."
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 05:20:14 -0400, Painius wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:50:08 -0400, HVAC <mr.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/4/2012 1:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
>>> wrote:
>>>> I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it
>>>> may not be obvious to some, so here goes...
>>> Painus please pay attention-
>> Paying attention as requested by UseNet trollerbot, Harlow.
>>>> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
>>>> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
>>>> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
>> So those who do not deviate from this so-called natural state cannot be
>> said to follow any path?
>> Not for anything, but I would have to disagree, Fiddy. On the issue of
>> theism vs. atheism, there are at least two possible main paths to
>> follow...
>> On the theist path, the followers perhaps irrationally accept a deity or
>> deities, supernatural beings with incredible powers. They follow this
>> path based upon faith and faith alone.
>> On the atheist path, the followers perhaps more rationally reject and/or
>> lack belief in a deity or deities, or any "beings" that likely arise
>> from other-than-natural sources. However, the atheist pathway is
>> *still* based upon faith... faith that theists are wrong.
> Lie. No faith involved. Theists are atheist with regard to all deity
> constructs but theirs. Atheists don't give the particular theist's deity
> (ies) special treatment. Theists are often challenged to provide a
> coherent and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string as well as
> objective supporting evidence. The echoing silence is deafening.
>> Walk either path, it's your choice, but let it be known that either path
>> produces an equal possibility/probability of being right or being wrong.
> Another lie.
>> There is a third path walked by the true skeptic. Be suspicious of both
>> theism *and* atheism, because neither is based on cold, hard facts in
>> evidence.
>> So even the atheistic restriction that one absolutely *must* either
>> believe or lack belief in a deity or deities tries and often succeeds to
>> limit one's freedom. The true skeptic is free, truly free, to choose
>> not to choose either theism or atheism. While one must be true and the
>> other must be fantasy, there is just no way to tell *which* is right and
>> *which* is wrong. It's basically a 50-50 guess.
>> Be suspicious. Be skeptical. Be truly "free".
> Which is why theists are so questioned and challenged.
> >> --
> >> Indelibly yours,
> >> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ > >> "Never ask for permission; just be ready to ask for forgiveness."
There is simply no more evidence for Jehovah than there is for Zeus.
Christians find no reason to believe that Zeus exists, so they do not
believe in him. For the same reason, I do not believe in Jehova. God
himself is more than welcome to share an honest conversation with me.
Until he does, I have no reason to trust that anyone is a reliable
spokesman for any god.
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:05:04 -0700
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:24:09 -0500
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:54:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> >> atheist goddess" <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>> As far as friendship is concerned, I'm puzzled that you consider me
> >>> to be one, for I don't know you personally and so there is no
> >>> mutual friendship beyond acquaintancy through this "alt.atheism"
> >>> newsgroup.
> >> He is a Christian. He follows a different path than you do.
> > Atheism isn't a path that one follows.
> I realize that I probably should have elaborated on this because it may
> not be obvious to some, so here goes...
> Atheism is not a path that one follows, rather it is the natural state
> of reality. When one follows a path that is based in a theology, they
> are effectively deviating from this natural free state.
> The path of religion is typically a deviation from one's nature as the
> victim becomes enslaved by the values and virtues of their chosen
> religious poison.
But there cannot be a free state as well, the Atheist first embraces
the basics from the past taught by religious preachers and then claim
to be free. How can one be at a free state right at the middle of
social belief cycle? First an Atheist must undo all the learning
process right from the beginning of time and restart to be a true
Atheist.
Is it possible for an Atheist to undo all the learning process?
Only GOD is a true Atheist, because it is only GOD who does not have
to believe in anyone else other then thyself. :-)
