Re: nn

Virgil

unread,

Aug 4, 2012, 4:01:34 AM8/4/12

to

In article
<2f339640-0934-4aa2...@18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Samuel Harrigon <samha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 4, 12:22�am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:09:11 -0600
> >
> > Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <64b8e714-f7d4-4e56-bb78-d21341860...@j8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 3, 7:36�pm, Joe Bruno <ajta...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > mm
> >
> > > > Praise HIM
> >
> > > First you must prove to us, using only reliable objective physical
> > > evidence, that there is any "HIM" to praise.
> >
> > Your demand for L.O.V.E. (Logical, Objective, Verifiable Evidence) is
> > something I care about. �Thank you for demanding it from Samuel.
> >
> > L.O.V.E.: �http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl
> >
> > --
> > Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> > "Religion endangers us all."
> > � �-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason (June 6, 2012)
>
> You should be getting real Love from Jesus Christ! Fidem, you're my
> friend, why you gotta be mean?

Friendship has to be based mutual respect, and while you may claim to
respect him, he certainly does not return any of it.
--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 4, 2012, 1:00:07 PM8/4/12

to

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:05:04 -0700

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:24:09 -0500
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:54:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>> atheist goddess" <god...@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!"

Zerkon

unread,

Aug 4, 2012, 3:03:32 PM8/4/12

to

In article <20120804100007.f7f9...@fidemturbare.com>,
god...@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"

Thus spaketh The Adams

HVAC

unread,

Aug 4, 2012, 3:50:08 PM8/4/12

to

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-

> 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.
>

--

"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

duke

unread,

Aug 5, 2012, 8:30:02 AM8/5/12

to

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:00:07 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist

goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 09:05:04 -0700
>"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
><god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:24:09 -0500
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:54:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>>> atheist goddess" <god...@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.
********************************************

duke

unread,

Aug 5, 2012, 8:30:49 AM8/5/12

to

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:

>In article <20120804100007.f7f9...@fidemturbare.com>,
>god...@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'.

Sorry, but we call that "up".

>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.

Zinnic

unread,

Aug 5, 2012, 12:53:55 PM8/5/12

to

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 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. :)
Zinnic

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 5, 2012, 3:01:30 PM8/5/12

to

On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400
Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article
> <20120804100007.f7f9...@fidemturbare.com>,
> god...@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)?

> 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."

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheism.pl

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)

duke

unread,

Aug 6, 2012, 7:16:17 AM8/6/12

to

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:01:30 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400
>Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <20120804100007.f7f9...@fidemturbare.com>,
>> god...@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?.

>> 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.

duke

unread,

Aug 6, 2012, 7:18:31 AM8/6/12

to

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 09:53:55 -0700 (PDT), Zinnic <zinni...@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 .

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 6, 2012, 4:12:55 PM8/6/12

to

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 06:16:17 -0500
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:01:30 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:03:32 -0400
> >Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <20120804100007.f7f9...@fidemturbare.com>,
> >> god...@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.
>
> You well implied "down".

How?

> >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.

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

Painius

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 5:20:14 AM8/7/12

to

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:50:08 -0400, HVAC <mr....@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.

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."

HVAC

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 8:56:07 AM8/7/12

to

On 8/7/2012 5:20 AM, Painius wrote:

Copyright Infringement Alert!!! Plagiarism Alert!!!

> Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 5:40:05 PM8/7/12

to

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:44:07 -0500

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

BroilJAB

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 6:03:52 PM8/7/12

to

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" <god...@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.

Stoney

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 10:09:00 PM8/7/12

to

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 05:20:14 -0400, Painius wrote:

> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:50:08 -0400, HVAC <mr....@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.

[]

u4z

unread,

Aug 7, 2012, 10:28:10 PM8/7/12

to

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.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 12:06:56 AM8/8/12

to

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?

>[]

Dakota

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 1:54:36 AM8/8/12

to

On 8/7/2012 4:09 PM, casey wrote:
> 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.

Dakota

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 1:59:21 AM8/8/12

to

Skeptics require evidence - not faith.

Jason

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 2:29:11 AM8/8/12

to

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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.

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 2:57:50 AM8/8/12

to

On Aug 4, 10:00 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.
>
> 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. :-)

Dakota

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 4:25:42 AM8/8/12

to

Please don't capitalize the word atheist unless it is the first word
in a sentence. Atheism is not a religion and atheists are not priests.

Everyone is born an atheist in that they have no belief in any god at
birth. Some atheists are fortunate to never hear anything taught by
religious preachers. Some of us have been preached at by theists and
recognized that they are merely repeating superstitious mythology. No
unlearning of anything is required but to suggest that the learning
goes back to the beginning of time is clear evidence that you believed
the mythic fables taught by the preachers of your particular religion.
Did you have to unlearn the preachings of druids, Sun worshipers, and
Mayans?

Your post is pure nonsense but you really went off the rails when you
mentioned a "true" atheist. As you have not understanding of what
atheism means, you are in no position to credibly define it. After
all, no true Hindu would try to do such a thing. See what I mean?

Samuel Harrigon

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 5:02:29 AM8/8/12

to

On Aug 7, 4:09 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 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.

Tell that to the millions of Christians whose numbers quite outweigh
your own.

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 9:40:20 AM8/8/12

to

Of course not. Atheist is a word coined by theists in an attempt to
ridicule non-believers. The word 'atheist' is formed by affixing the
letter 'a' to the word 'theist'. A theist is a believer in one or more
gods. The 'a' added indicates that the word 'atheist' refers to those
who are not theists. Ergo, the definitions of the words 'atheist' and
'atheism' necessarily contain a reference to a god or gods. Similarly,
a numismatist is one who collects coins. One who does not collect
coins could conceivably be referred to as an anumismatist. It is not
possible to define the latter word without a reference to coin
collecting. It's a simple concept. What did you think the word
'atheist' meant?

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 10:22:12 AM8/8/12

to

If there is a logical reasoning behind a belief there is no problem
with it. But if someone tells without a reason waves started in an
isolated environment and if one wants to believe it, is it possible?

The atheists claim a "cause" is without a reason, is it possible to
accept it?

On what basis is that claim to be accepted?

Dakota

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 1:21:06 PM8/8/12

to

Why do you say that the "atheists claim a "cause" is without a
reason"? What cause are you talking about? Are you actually asking
about an effect without a cause? Answer my questions if you want to
see a response. If you snip my post again without answering to my
questions, I will be forced to conclude you have no interest in dialog
and are simply trying to extend the thread and, therefore, a troll.

u4z

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 1:36:48 PM8/8/12

to

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >
> Why do you say that the "atheists claim a "cause" is without a
> reason"? What cause are you talking about? Are you actually asking
> about an effect without a cause? Answer my questions if you want to
> see a response. If you snip my post again without answering to my
> questions, I will be forced to conclude you have no interest in dialog
> and are simply trying to extend the thread and, therefore, a troll.
>

A clear definition of 'God,' plus some objective and compelling
supporting evidence, would be enough to convince many atheists.

The evidence must be objective, though; anecdotal evidence of
other people's religious experiences isn't good enough. And strong,
compelling evidence is required, because the existence of God is
an extraordinary claim--and extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.

Jason

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 2:17:42 PM8/8/12

to

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >
> Why do you say that the "atheists claim a "cause" is without a
> reason"? What cause are you talking about? Are you actually asking
> about an effect without a cause? Answer my questions if you want to
> see a response. If you snip my post again without answering to my
> questions, I will be forced to conclude you have no interest in dialog
> and are simply trying to extend the thread and, therefore, a troll.
>

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 2:45:24 PM8/8/12

to

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:40:20 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/8/2012 3:37 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>> Everyone is born an atheist in that they have no belief in any god at
>>> birth. Some atheists are fortunate to never hear anything taught by
>>> religious preachers. Some of us have been preached at by theists and
>>> recognized that they are merely repeating superstitious mythology. No
>>> unlearning of anything is required but to suggest that the learning
>>> goes back to the beginning of time is clear evidence that you believed
>>> the mythic fables taught by the preachers of your particular religion.
>>> Did you have to unlearn the preachings of druids, Sun worshipers, and
>>> Mayans?
>>
>> See what you wrote for yourself
>> "Everyone is born an atheist in that they have no belief in any god"

Which happens to be correct, no matter how many disrespectful theists
who imagine they know our minds netter than we do ourselves, tell us
otherwise.

>> Can you define Atheism without mentioning "God"?

Can you define "not collecting stamps" without reference to stamps?

>Of course not. Atheist is a word coined by theists in an attempt to
>ridicule non-believers. The word 'atheist' is formed by affixing the
>letter 'a' to the word 'theist'. A theist is a believer in one or more
>gods. The 'a' added indicates that the word 'atheist' refers to those
>who are not theists. Ergo, the definitions of the words 'atheist' and
>'atheism' necessarily contain a reference to a god or gods. Similarly,
>a numismatist is one who collects coins. One who does not collect
>coins could conceivably be referred to as an anumismatist. It is not
>possible to define the latter word without a reference to coin
>collecting. It's a simple concept. What did you think the word
>'atheist' meant?

It's a concept most theists can't grasp because their gods are so real
and self-evident to them, that they can't conceive of their being
merely something somebody else believes.

We're not theists, Why can't they just have the common sense and
courtesy to leave it at that?

We wouldn't even give gods a thought other than the stuff of ancient
myths and legends if their believers had the common sense and courtesy
to keep them inside their religion where they belong.

But most can't and don't just think they're real but also supremely
important for everybody else as well.

So they invent positions we don't have as if they were, in a way which
bolsters their self-esteem because the idea that they could simply be
irrelevant is inconceivable.

And worse, they use amateur psychology to invent "reasons" for these
positions we don't even have in the first place. In their minds nobody
could have honest reasons not to believe.

Which they haven't the common sense and courtesy to keep to
themselves, either.

And after they do all this they get offended by explanations they
don't like but its their fault for putting us in that situation,
amateur psychologising these as arrogance, anger or hatred on our part
for dismissing or insulting "the most important thing in their lives".

Which again they haven't the common sense and courtesy to keep to
themselves.

Which is just plain nastiness on more than one level - not just their
lies about us, to us, but also the fact that they don't even care
enough to find out our actual POV instead of the straw man they keep
attacking. They're going to do it anyway.

Even our not giving it a thought has the same effect on them. Even by
taking no notice and getting on with our own lives we're dissing
something supremely important to them so they get deeply offended.

Is it any wonder we treat them as rude idiots?

Immortalist

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 3:26:31 PM8/8/12

to

On Aug 4, 10:00 am, "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.
>
> 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.
>

What is the difference between Humanism and Atheism? If Humanism is a
way of life without gods why can't Atheism be considered as such?

...Humanism is the viewpoint that people have but one life to lead and
should make the most of it in terms of creative work and happiness;
that human happiness is its own justification and requires no sanction
or support from supernatural sources; that in any case the
supernatural, usually conceived of in the form of heavenly gods or
immortal heavens, does not exist; and that human beings, using their
own intelligence and cooperating liberally with one another, can build
an enduring citadel of peace and beauty upon this earth.

Human reason and human efforts are our best and, indeed, only hope;
our refusal to recognize this point is one of the chief causes of our
many human failures throughout history. The Christian West has been
confused and corrupted for almost 2,000 years by the idea so
succinctly expressed by St. Augustine, "Cursed is everyone who places
his hope in man."....

Ten central propositions:

(1) Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward
the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and
that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly
changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any
mind or con-sciousness.

(2) Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science,
believes that we human beings are an evolutionary product of the
Nature of which we are a part; that the mind is indivisibly conjoined
with the functioning of the brain; and that as an inseparable unity of
body and personal-ity we can have no conscious survival after death.

(3) Humanism, having its ultimate faith in humankind, believes that
human beings possess the power or potentiality of solving their own
problems, through reliance primarily upon reason and scientific method
applied with courage and vision.

(4) Humanism, in opposition to all theories of universal determinism,
fatalism, or predestination, believes that human beings, while
conditioned by the past, possess genuine freedom of creative choice
and action, and are, within certain objective limits, the shapers of
their own destiny.

(5) Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human
values in this-earthly experiences and re-lationships and that holds
as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress
economic, cultural, and ethical— of all humankind, irrespective of
nation, race, or re-ligion.

(6) Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by
harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-
development with significant work and other activities that contribute
to the welfare of the community.

(7) Humanism believes in the widest possible devel-opment of art and
the awareness of beauty, including the ap-preciation of Nature's
loveliness and splendor, so that the aesthetic experience may become a
pervasive reality in the lives of all people.

(8) Humanism believes in a far-reaching social program that stands for
the establishment throughout the world of democracy, peace, and a high
standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order,
both national and international.

(9) Humanism believes in the complete social implementation of reason
and scientific method; and thereby in democratic procedures, and
parliamentary government, with full freedom of expression and civil
liberties, throughout all areas of economic, political, and cultural
life.

(10) Humanism, in accordance with scientific method, believes in the
unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions, including
its own. Humanism is not a new dogma, but is a developing philosophy
ever open to experi-mental testing, newly discovered facts, and more
rigorous reasoning.

I think that these ten points embody Humanism in its most acceptable
modern form. This philosophy can be more explicitly characterized as
scientific Humanism, secular Humanism, naturalistic Humanism, or
democratic Humanism, depending on the emphasis that one wishes to
give.

The Philosophy of Humanism - by Corliss Lamont
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0931779073/qid=1096132637/
http://www.google.com/search?q=Philosophy+of+Humanism+Corliss+Lamont
http://www.humanists.org/index.htm

> 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

Virgil

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 4:03:34 PM8/8/12

to

In article <f1j428d80r4o0gnqi...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> >I am not for nor against gay marriage (you called it "queer marriage"),
> >and I have never imposed gay marriages on anyone.
>
> Pardon me, but your kind have.

Up until quite recently, there has been no gay marriage in law anywhere,
and "his kind" has never "imposed" it on anyone, merely not opposed it.

> Now before you blow a fuse, this discussion is
> about people, not you.

So what sort of "NON-people" are you claiming he is one of?

> And so, yes, queers in actions are clearly revealed in
> scripture as contrary to the teachings of God to the point of loss of any
> eternal salvation.

According to St. John, only those who follow Jesus will have any life
after death anyway, so almost half the world's present population will
die when they die, even if that promise of life after death is not, as
many of us suspect, a con.
--

Painius

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 7:04:59 PM8/8/12

to

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 08:56:07 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/7/2012 5:20 AM, Painius wrote:
>
>
>Copyright Infringement Alert!!! Plagiarism Alert!!!
>
>
>> Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

Did you hear Beulah the Buzzer, Harlow? It's not plagiarism, because
plenty of people have heard the song, "Me and Bobby McGee" enough to
*know* that I did not originate that sentence. Although, I sometimes
wonder how many realize that it wasn't Janis Joplin who wrote it, but
instead it was Kris Kristofferson, who wrote it about a ficticious
*girl* named "Bobbie McGee".

And it's not copyright infringement, because if you check it, it's in
what is termed by copyright law as "the public domain".

>"Freedom is a state of mind, not a condition" -HVAC

Another of the very few things we agree on, Harlow. LOL !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"To stay healthy, don't let a day go by without laughter."

HVAC

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 7:38:50 PM8/8/12

to

On 8/8/2012 7:04 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
>> "Freedom is a state of mind, not a condition" -HVAC
>
> Another of the very few things we agree on, Harlow. LOL !

You should ALWAYS follow my teachings.

"In the darkness I shall illuminate the way" -HVAC

--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

Painius

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 7:49:31 PM8/8/12

to

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 02:02:29 -0700 (PDT), Samuel Harrigon
<samha...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 7, 4:09 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Tell that to the millions of Christians whose numbers quite outweigh
>your own.

<sacasm mode>
Tell me if you've heard this before, Father - numbers do not determine
the truth or reality of anything.
</sarcasm mode>

What if those millions of Christians are wrong? Each of them as an
individual could be just as wrong as you think casey is, isn't that
so? Then if one individual can be wrong, a million individuals can be
wrong, so how can sheer numbers be used to assess truth?

>> 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.
>
>I'm afraid that would be *your* thinking, if one can call it thinking.

What kind of "Father" Christian tries to lure followers with insults?
Already your credibility as both a Christian and a Father are highly
suspect.

>> > 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.
>
>The same can be said of atheism.

Yes, on this we agree. Christians base their belief in God on what
they read, what they hear from the pulpit, and sometimes they get a
strange feeling inside, what they might call their "personal
experience of God", even though that might just arise from something
they ate.

I am not being facetious. It really might have just been something
they ate!

No facts. Just faith and faith alone. But then, that's okay with
you, correct? God tells you that you must accept Him on faith. So
it's okay with you if no cold, hard facts can be produced to support
your faith and belief in God, right?

Similarly, atheists, who think they are far more rational and
reasonable than Christians, really only lack belief, or reject belief,
or have an absence of belief in gods that is based primarily upon
their faith that you and other Christians/theists are wrong. There
are no cold, hard facts to support atheism, either.

So the true skeptic would be suspicious of both theism and atheism.
Skepticism *requires* facts - cold, hard facts. Neither you, nor any
other theist, nor any atheist can produce such facts to support either
theism or atheism.

I believe that to accept something as true and real based solely upon
faith is at times both irrational and unreasonable - not to mention
unwise. For while either theism or atheism must be right and the
other wrong, there really is no way to tell *which* is right and
*which* is wrong.

Some who call themselves Christians and some of other faiths as well
would at this point perhaps begin to feel sympathy for this poor lost
soul. Even that does not lend credibility to the existence of any
god. So to them I would say, save your sympathy for yourselves, for
there are no guarantees that you are right and atheists are wrong.

I for one will wait until my research uncovers at least one cold, hard
fact to support either theism or atheism before I intend to commit to
a decision either way.

Painius

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 8:05:27 PM8/8/12

to

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:38:50 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/8/2012 7:04 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Freedom is a state of mind, not a condition" -HVAC
>>
>> Another of the very few things we agree on, Harlow. LOL !
>
>
>You should ALWAYS follow my teachings.
>
>
>"In the darkness I shall illuminate the way" -HVAC

You're a sick kid.

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 8:45:40 PM8/8/12

to

My mistake...
Right, atheists claim from an completely isolated environment the
universe that we see sprouted... is that possible and to be accepted?

Will you accept if you are told in a closed matchbox a Coin suddenly
appeared out of no where?

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 9:56:38 PM8/8/12

to

Partial piggyback, and a perfect example why I have a domain-level
filter on anything posted from google, with specific exceptions...

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:21:06 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/8/2012 9:22 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>
>> If there is a logical reasoning behind a belief there is no problem
>> with it. But if someone tells without a reason waves started in an
>> isolated environment and if one wants to believe it, is it possible?

Yet you have no logical reasoning behind your religious beliefs.

You actually believe them because you learned them from your parents
as a child.

>> The atheists claim a "cause" is without a reason, is it possible to
>> accept it?

That's news to me, but then I'm only an atheist and need two assholes
- one to shit through and the other to tell me what I say or do.

>> On what basis is that claim to be accepted?

A claim that exists only in your deluded imagination.

>Why do you say that the "atheists claim a "cause" is without a
>reason"?

Because he's a fucking moron.

> What cause are you talking about? Are you actually asking
>about an effect without a cause? Answer my questions if you want to
>see a response. If you snip my post again without answering to my
>questions, I will be forced to conclude you have no interest in dialog
>and are simply trying to extend the thread and, therefore, a troll.

I suspect he means the big bang - which is nothing whatsoever to do
with atheism but is part of the scientific field known as cosmology.

Which is accepted by educated theists of all religions.

And it is simply treated as an event.

Calling it a cause is a dishonest linguistic trick to try and sneak in
a god by generating information where there isn't any.

Like most stupid theists, he is wilfully ignorant otherwise he would
know that causeless events are not a problem for science (again,
nothing to do with atheism).

They are part and parcel of quantum mechanics.

Sub-atomic particles are known to appear spontaneously, "borrowing"
the necessary energy and "paying it back" at the end of their life, so
the net sum is zero. Which maintains mass/energy conservation.

Physicists and cosmologists treat the universe as having a zero sum
over its lifetime.

While nobody knows what happened prior to 10^-43 of a second into the
initial expansion because our understanding of the laws of physics
break down at the singularity, there several speculations, none of
which break any known laws of physics.

This is known as Planck time - and is the smallest increment of time
in current physics. The "tick" immediately prior to this was at the
singularity itself - where the math we use to model physics does
things like dividing both sides of an equation starts doing things
like dividing by zero.

But unlike religious "explanations", nobody insists any one of them is
true. They're just speculations based on what is already known,
avenues for investigation when we have the capability to do this.

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 8, 2012, 11:04:47 PM8/8/12

to

On Aug 9, 6:56 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Partial piggyback, and a perfect example why I have a domain-level
> filter on anything posted from google, with specific exceptions...
>
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:21:06 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 8/8/2012 9:22 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> >> If there is a logical reasoning behind a belief there is no problem
> >> with it. But if someone tells without a reason waves started in an
> >> isolated environment and if one wants to believe it, is it possible?
>
> Yet you have no logical reasoning behind your religious beliefs.

Atheists did not have a problem living without knowing the reason for
gravity. We were told the reason.

RedAcer

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 5:36:03 AM8/9/12

to

This is the pointless 'god of the gaps' argument. We may not know
precisely how the universe began, we may never know. I'm ok with that.
There is no reason why should be able to know everything. I see no point
in inventing some gods to explain those things we don't know. Far better
to use the methods of science to attempt to find out more than we
currently know.

>
> Will you accept if you are told in a closed matchbox a Coin suddenly
> appeared out of no where?
>

--
" There is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet "
Pauli on dirac.

HVAC

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 7:03:51 AM8/9/12

to

On 8/8/2012 7:49 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>
> I for one will wait until my research uncovers at least one cold, hard
> fact to support either theism or atheism before I intend to commit to
> a decision either way.

But yesterday you told me that you believed in god...Or at least truly
'hoped' there was a god. So, your belief is clear. YOU believe in god.

And you have no 'cold hard facts'.

*I*, on the other hand, do NOT believe in god. And THAT is a 'cold, hard
fact'.

See how easy?

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 8:28:19 AM8/9/12

to

It is not god of gaps etc. There is plain simple testimony that it is
GOD who did it... and for ages it has been said so. It has been
documented and passed on for generations after generations.

Why Atheists don't believe in what elders are telling?

Why do you believe you were born to your parents and that your parents
are your parents? Is there a way to prove that as well? I have asked
many of them repeatedly...

Is there a way to prove you were born to your parents and that your
parents are telling truth and that people around you are telling
truth, since atheists are telling all are lying. Their answers "yes"
the birth records in the hospital say so etc.

So, the same way for generations the same is said about GOD. If you
don't believe in GOD then you should not believe your parents are your
parents as well?

Everything stands on belief. Saying elders are telling lies is a
serious mistake.

Dakota

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 9:40:23 AM8/9/12

to

Atheists make no claims about the origin of the Universe. Atheists
realize that it's fine to say "I don't know." It's theists who claim
"God did it." when faced with an unknown.

Dakota

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 9:52:53 AM8/9/12

to

Atheists aren't embarrassed to admit that there are gaps in our
understanding of the Universe. Theists aren't embarrassed to simply
fill those gaps with "God did it."

Wow! That's great. How long ago were you told about the Higgs Boson?
Does it appear on one of your ancient holy books? Can you explain dark
matter to us also?

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 10:41:34 AM8/9/12

to

On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:04 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:56 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Partial piggyback, and a perfect example why I have a domain-level
> >> filter on anything posted from google, with specific exceptions...
>
> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:21:06 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 8/8/2012 9:22 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> >>>> If there is a logical reasoning behind a belief there is no problem
> >>>> with it. But if someone tells without a reason waves started in an
> >>>> isolated environment and if one wants to believe it, is it possible?
>
> >> Yet you have no logical reasoning behind your religious beliefs.
>
> > Atheists did not have a problem living without knowing the reason for
> > gravity. We were told the reason.
>
> Atheists aren't embarrassed to admit that there are gaps in our
> understanding of the Universe. Theists aren't embarrassed to simply
> fill those gaps with "God did it."
>

Are they lying?

> Wow! That's great. How long ago were you told about the Higgs Boson?
> Does it appear on one of your ancient holy books? Can you explain dark
> matter to us also?

Everything is told. But like in a lecture "we" don't understand
everything we are taught, so is the case with people who are unable to
explain.

Again, there is a restriction imposed after a certain level of
understanding is achieved. May be people in the society might misuse
the teachings.

For e.g. The upon knowing the formula for Atom Bomb people might
misuse them.

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 11:08:31 AM8/9/12

to

On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 10:04 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:56 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Partial piggyback, and a perfect example why I have a domain-level
> >> filter on anything posted from google, with specific exceptions...
>
> >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:21:06 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 8/8/2012 9:22 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> >>>> If there is a logical reasoning behind a belief there is no problem
> >>>> with it. But if someone tells without a reason waves started in an
> >>>> isolated environment and if one wants to believe it, is it possible?
>
> >> Yet you have no logical reasoning behind your religious beliefs.
>
> > Atheists did not have a problem living without knowing the reason for
> > gravity. We were told the reason.
>
> Atheists aren't embarrassed to admit that there are gaps in our
> understanding of the Universe.

Gaps are everywhere is we stop "believing". If we start doing that
nothing is real and everything can be denied.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 12:05:16 PM8/9/12

to

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:36:03 +0100, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

>>>> The atheists claim a "cause" is without a reason, is it possible to
>>>> accept it?
>>>
>>>> On what basis is that claim to be accepted?
>>>
>>> Why do you say that the "atheists claim a "cause" is without a
>>> reason"? What cause are you talking about? Are you actually asking
>>> about an effect without a cause? Answer my questions if you want to
>>> see a response. If you snip my post again without answering to my
>>> questions, I will be forced to conclude you have no interest in dialog
>>> and are simply trying to extend the thread and, therefore, a troll.

He's either stupid, lying or both.

Because atheists make no such claim.

This has now been explained to him more than once so is longer an
honest mistake.

If it ever was one.

>> My mistake...
>> Right, atheists claim from an completely isolated environment the
>> universe that we see sprouted... is that possible and to be accepted?

Here he repeats what he knows by now is a falsehood.

A lie.

Which makes him a liar.

> This is the pointless 'god of the gaps' argument. We may not know
>precisely how the universe began, we may never know. I'm ok with that.
>There is no reason why should be able to know everything. I see no point
>in inventing some gods to explain those things we don't know. Far better
>to use the methods of science to attempt to find out more than we
>currently know.

It was actually a strawman. A dishonest caricature of the big bang
meant to be dismissed out of hand by his fellow brainwashed believers.

And which he stupidly repeats to who understand it far better than he
does.

There isn't a name for this fallacy - I call it "argument by derision
of a caricature".

The big bang is nothing to do with atheism. One of its early
proponents was the Abbé Lemâitre, a monk who was a physicist and
astronomer.

It is a scientifically derived fact that is accepted by educated
theists everywhere.

And nobody claims to know what happened prior to 10^-43 of a second
into the expansion.

Science (quantum mechanics) knows about things appearing spontaneously
from nothing. Sub atomic particles can appear and vanish

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 5:52:09 PM8/9/12

to

Excellent! That's what science encourages everyone to do, except that
it emphasizes "challenging" and "questioning" rather than "denying."

I'm assuming that you're showing support, or is my Asperger's getting
the better of me again?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that
there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof."
-- Galbraith's Law of Human Nature

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 6:00:36 PM8/9/12

to

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:57:25 -0500
Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 9:41 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> >> Wow! That's great. How long ago were you told about the Higgs
> >> Boson? Does it appear on one of your ancient holy books? Can you
> >> explain dark matter to us also?
> >
> > Everything is told. But like in a lecture "we" don't understand
> > everything we are taught, so is the case with people who are unable
> > to explain.
>
> Okay. You were 'told' the reason for gravity but don't understand it.
> That doesn't seem very helpful to me. Recall that earlier you noted
> that "atheists did not have a problem living without knowing the
> reason for gravity." Now you've admitted you don't understand the
> reason for gravity. I have to ask this question: Do you have a
> problem living without knowing the reason for gravity?

That is so beautifully laid out. I am very interested in seeing any
theist's genuine response to this, especially if it's an attempt at
impartial philosophizing (come one folks, do it as if you need to make
Friedrich Nietzsche proud).

> Are you also claiming that whoever 'told' you the reason for gravity
> was unable to explain it well enough for you to understand?

From the standpoint of impartiality, it's important to note that there
are many atheists who also don't understand, so this isn't a comment
specifically targeting theists in general, rather; it's a fair question.

> > Again, there is a restriction imposed after a certain level of
> > understanding is achieved. May be people in the society might misuse
> > the teachings.
>
> Who imposes the restriction? The teacher?

Ha ha! Usually it's the students.

> > For e.g. The upon knowing the formula for Atom Bomb people might
> > misuse them.
>
> Imagine the horrors if someone were to misuse the reason for gravity.
> I'm asking you to do it because I can't imagine any way it could be
> misused.

Misuse of gravity? Ha ha! That concept is epic.

I am enjoying this post so much, thank you Dakota! This was truly
excellent, and I hope you'll find the quotation below my signature
fitting also.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"In order to fly, all one must do is simply miss the ground."
-- Douglas Noel Adams, Satirical Statistical Scientist

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 6:06:30 PM8/9/12

to

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:54:36 -0500
Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/7/2012 4:09 PM, casey wrote:
> > 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.

Ha ha! It was a "true 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".

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Love is not a volunteer thing."
-- Samuel Richardson

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 6:08:11 PM8/9/12

to

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:38:50 -0400
HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 7:04 PM, Painius wrote:
>
> >> "Freedom is a state of mind, not a condition" -HVAC
> >
> > Another of the very few things we agree on, Harlow. LOL !
>
> You should ALWAYS follow my teachings.
>
>
> "In the darkness I shall illuminate the way" -HVAC

When did you first write/say that?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Women do not often fall in love with philosophers."
-- Samuel Richardson

HVAC

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 6:23:37 PM8/9/12

to

On 8/9/2012 6:08 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:38:50 -0400
> HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/8/2012 7:04 PM, Painius wrote:
>>
>>>> "Freedom is a state of mind, not a condition" -HVAC
>>>
>>> Another of the very few things we agree on, Harlow. LOL !
>>
>> You should ALWAYS follow my teachings.
>>
>>
>> "In the darkness I shall illuminate the way" -HVAC
>
> When did you first write/say that?
>

I just sort of make things up as I go along, Fidem.

For the hell of it, I just put it into Google and what came up was
my quote on the newsgroups, so I guess the answer is 8/8/12 at 7:38

My 'Freedom' quote above was at the top of Google as well.

All are free to anyone. I'm not Painus. I won't threaten copyright
infringement LOL

Dakota

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 6:29:01 PM8/9/12

to

On 8/9/2012 5:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

Thanks, Fidem. Every now and again I have a good day.

Has there ever been a post here at a.a for which an apt quote from
Douglas Adams couldn't be found? I, for one, doubt it. I really miss
that guy. Have you read anything from Terry Pratchett's Diskworld
series? He's the only author I've yet found that comes close to
matching Adams.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 8:28:42 PM8/9/12

to

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:57:25 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>

wrote:

>On 8/9/2012 9:41 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2012 10:04 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 6:56 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Partial piggyback, and a perfect example why I have a domain-level
>>>>> filter on anything posted from google, with specific exceptions...
>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:21:06 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 8/8/2012 9:22 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If there is a logical reasoning behind a belief there is no problem
>>>>>>> with it. But if someone tells without a reason waves started in an
>>>>>>> isolated environment and if one wants to believe it, is it possible?
>>>
>>>>> Yet you have no logical reasoning behind your religious beliefs.
>>>
>>>> Atheists did not have a problem living without knowing the reason for
>>>> gravity. We were told the reason.
>>>
>>> Atheists aren't embarrassed to admit that there are gaps in our
>>> understanding of the Universe. Theists aren't embarrassed to simply
>>> fill those gaps with "God did it."
>>
>> Are they lying?

False dichotomy.

>I suppose that most of them are very sincere. The problem I have with
>the 'god did it' gap filler is that it add nothing to our
>understanding of our Universe but, rather, simply adds another
>mystery. Get back to us when all theists agree on the definition of
>god. In the meantime, ponder the quote posted below.

They don't realise just how much work they have to do before claiming
that a god did it - they have to first establish this hypothetical god
in the real world outside their religion.

>I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we
>once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now
>the best answer is a religious one. - Sam Harris

Good one.

>>> Wow! That's great. How long ago were you told about the Higgs Boson?
>>> Does it appear on one of your ancient holy books? Can you explain dark
>>> matter to us also?
>>
>> Everything is told. But like in a lecture "we" don't understand
>> everything we are taught, so is the case with people who are unable to
>> explain.
>>
>Okay. You were 'told' the reason for gravity but don't understand it.
>That doesn't seem very helpful to me. Recall that earlier you noted
>that "atheists did not have a problem living without knowing the
>reason for gravity." Now you've admitted you don't understand the
>reason for gravity. I have to ask this question: Do you have a problem
>living without knowing the reason for gravity?

The religious like a simple answer even if it is wrong.

If he wouldn't be satisfied by "the fairies at the bottom of the
garden make it happen, you don't need to know how", why does he
imagine the equivalent about a god nobody outside his religion
believes, should satisfy us?

>Are you also claiming that whoever 'told' you the reason for gravity
>was unable to explain it well enough for you to understand?

I have no idea. I cannot fathom the theist mind even though the lady I
have loved for the last fifteen years is one.

>> Again, there is a restriction imposed after a certain level of
>> understanding is achieved. May be people in the society might misuse
>> the teachings.

What "teachings"?

>Who imposes the restriction? The teacher?

Science isn't about "teachings", but investigation to find out how
reality works.

>> For e.g. The upon knowing the formula for Atom Bomb people might
>> misuse them.
>>
>Imagine the horrors if someone were to misuse the reason for gravity.
>I'm asking you to do it because I can't imagine any way it could be
>misused.

Throw him off the roof and see whether he floats.

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 10:07:20 PM8/9/12

to

Ok... then is there a way you can prove your parents are your parents?
and the universe around you is not a fallacy?

What if you are someone special and what if the entire universe was
planted for you?
What if your birth never happened? and What if you are actually living
in a fabricated universe?
After you think you were born what if everyone around you were lying?

Then all your experiments and readings will be a fallacy?

If you are true Atheist start this way because you do not want to
believe.
B'se if you believing one and disbelieving another that is a problem
in your rational arguments.

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 10:07:58 PM8/9/12

to

On Aug 10, 2:41 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 10:10:07 PM8/9/12

to

On Aug 10, 5:28 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>

wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:57:25 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 8/9/2012 9:41 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >> On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8/8/2012 10:04 PM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> >>>> On Aug 9, 6:56 am, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Partial piggyback, and a perfect example why I have a domain-level
> >>>>> filter on anything posted from google, with specific exceptions...
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:21:06 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 8/8/2012 9:22 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> If there is a logical reasoning behind a belief there is no problem
> >>>>>>> with it. But if someone tells without a reason waves started in an
> >>>>>>> isolated environment and if one wants to believe it, is it possible?
>
> >>>>> Yet you have no logical reasoning behind your religious beliefs.
>
> >>>> Atheists did not have a problem living without knowing the reason for
> >>>> gravity. We were told the reason.
>
> >>> Atheists aren't embarrassed to admit that there are gaps in our
> >>> understanding of the Universe. Theists aren't embarrassed to simply
> >>> fill those gaps with "God did it."
>
> >> Are they lying?
>
> False dichotomy.

Correct

Mike Lovell

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 10:16:43 PM8/9/12

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-10, Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> False dichotomy.
>
> Correct
>
> Ok... then is there a way you can prove your parents are your parents?

Yep, genetic testing. Using done on the Maury Show!

> and the universe around you is not a fallacy?

You want to prove a negative. If you assert its a fallacy then prove
it, if not we'll take it how it self-evidently is.

> What if you are someone special and what if the entire universe was
> planted for you?

If my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.

> What if your birth never happened?

I'd no be here talking to you!

> and What if you are actually living
> in a fabricated universe?

Burden of proof is on you.

> After you think you were born what if everyone around you were lying?

Burden of proof is on you.

> Then all your experiments and readings will be a fallacy?

Burden of proof is on you.

> If you are true Atheist start this way because you do not want to
> believe.
> B'se if you believing one and disbelieving another that is a problem
> in your rational arguments.

I don't believe any of your ridiculous statements. Prove them to be
true without asking for disproof and maybe we can talk!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAkbwcACgkQRuP0ePfiZW6NRgQA4DWzgT8ZuC9veqQ17Ivk9KFF
yIrPgOq9gdak+1IAR6UJwPrndot1kh9vOU2sR5HJ2huAioalSAHoHAzTU4Mo2pCW
BG9Jhk9BqCq0jD0jxxfAvFuTADNS/Mwl7fzfSW+Q3u5vL3jNANu0Wau5zoMGiey6
5G5AHTCFKADgRwaPSPM=
=ZHxp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 10:34:30 PM8/9/12

to

On Aug 10, 7:16 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

> On 2012-08-10, Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> False dichotomy.
>
> > Correct
>
> > Ok... then is there a way you can prove your parents are your parents?
>
> Yep, genetic testing. Using done on the Maury Show!

How do you know its not fabricated just for you? How do you know you
are not in a staged universe?

>
> > and the universe around you is not a fallacy?
>
> You want to prove a negative. If you assert its a fallacy then prove
> it, if not we'll take it how it self-evidently is.

I am not asserting fallacy, so the burden of proof lies with you. I
say I believe in what my elders have said, along with their assertion
"there is GOD behind everything"

>
> > What if you are someone special and what if the entire universe was
> > planted for you?
>
> If my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle.
>
> > What if your birth never happened?
>
> I'd no be here talking to you!

How do you know I am not assuming the same fallacy of yours?
May be there is just you and me and everyone around false?

>
> > and What if you are actually living
> > in a fabricated universe?
>
> Burden of proof is on you.
>

I am not asserting fallacy, so the burden of proof lies with you. I
say I believe in what my elders have said, along with their assertion
"there is GOD behind everything"
If you are an atheist you are asserting 1 of their statement "there is
GOD behind everything" is false and others are correct.... why?
believe everything is incorrect and start....

> > After you think you were born what if everyone around you were lying?
>
> Burden of proof is on you.

I am not asserting fallacy, so the burden of proof lies with you. I
say I believe in what my elders have said, along with their assertion
"there is GOD behind everything"
If you are an atheist you are asserting 1 of their statement "there is
GOD behind everything" is false and others are correct.
why? believe everything is incorrect and start....

>
> > Then all your experiments and readings will be a fallacy?
>
> Burden of proof is on you.

I am not asserting fallacy, so the burden of proof lies with you. I
say I believe in what my elders have said, along with their assertion
"there is GOD behind everything"
If you are an atheist you are asserting 1 of their statement "there is
GOD behind everything" is false and others are correct.... why?
believe everything is incorrect and start....

>
> > If you are true Atheist start this way because you do not want to
> > believe.
> > B'se if you believing one and disbelieving another that is a problem
> > in your rational arguments.
>
> I don't believe any of your ridiculous statements. Prove them to be
> true without asking for disproof and maybe we can talk!

I am not asserting fallacy, so the burden of proof lies with you. I
say I believe in what my elders have said, along with their assertion
"there is GOD behind everything"
If you are an atheist you are asserting 1 of their statement "there is
GOD behind everything" is false and others are correct.... why?
believe everything is incorrect and start....

Mike Lovell

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 10:50:26 PM8/9/12

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2012-08-10, Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yep, genetic testing. Using done on the Maury Show!
>
> How do you know its not fabricated just for you? How do you know you
> are not in a staged universe?

You assert it's fake, prove it. The body of science is behind it.

>> You want to prove a negative. If you assert its a fallacy then prove
>> it, if not we'll take it how it self-evidently is.
>
> I am not asserting fallacy, so the burden of proof lies with you. I
> say I believe in what my elders have said, along with their assertion
> "there is GOD behind everything"

You are making an assertion. You believ God is behind everything, prove
it.

>> > What if your birth never happened?
>>
>> I'd no be here talking to you!
>
> How do you know I am not assuming the same fallacy of yours?
> May be there is just you and me and everyone around false?

There's no fallacy of mine.

>> > and What if you are actually living
>> > in a fabricated universe?
>>
>> Burden of proof is on you.
>>
>
> I am not asserting fallacy, so the burden of proof lies with you.

It doesn't matter what you're asserting, the burden of proof lies with
the asserter, you.

> I
> say I believe in what my elders have said, along with their assertion
> "there is GOD behind everything"

Prove it.

> If you are an atheist you are asserting 1 of their statement "there is
> GOD behind everything" is false and others are correct.... why?
> believe everything is incorrect and start....

No I'm not asserting that.

I don't *know* God doesn't exist, I just don't believe God does.

Until someone proves God exists that will be my position.

>> > After you think you were born what if everyone around you were lying?
>>
>> Burden of proof is on you.

As above, it remains with you.

>> > Then all your experiments and readings will be a fallacy?
>>
>> Burden of proof is on you.

As above.

>> I don't believe any of your ridiculous statements. Prove them to be
>> true without asking for disproof and maybe we can talk!
>

> I am not asserting fallacy [...]

As above.

You are making assertions. Back them up.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAkdu4ACgkQRuP0ePfiZW65VQP+K1bk6SpJkb7ryYdW/n18ZFc4
uMrV0iAGE3e6fF0prYlcnx6PGAEnLSJa9eyUDR9cvn928FyTb4IqYO0Rw6g3FGxx
tkmD9qf9hAT9JePvgqS7NXJr2xMe+kPIs9P3alpwaY98XUFdy991XH+J1N08kGKw
A2kYyvfyeYT0anZpnSk=
=LjNZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 11:03:28 PM8/9/12

to

On Aug 10, 7:50 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

> On 2012-08-10, Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Yep, genetic testing. Using done on the Maury Show!
>
> > How do you know its not fabricated just for you? How do you know you
> > are not in a staged universe?
>
> You assert it's fake, prove it. The body of science is behind it.
>

I did not assert anything, I asked why you did not assume that?

I asked why disbelieve just 1 assertion "there is GOD behind
everything" that everyone in the past is citing and believe other
assertions?

Ganesh J. Acharya

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 11:08:40 PM8/9/12

to

On Aug 10, 7:50 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:

> > If you are an atheist you are asserting 1 of their statement "there is
> > GOD behind everything" is false and others are correct.... why?
> > believe everything is incorrect and start....
>
> No I'm not asserting that.
>
> I don't *know* God doesn't exist, I just don't believe God does.
>

Good, that does not make you an atheist

Mike Lovell

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 11:12:54 PM8/9/12

unread,

Aug 9, 2012, 11:16:25 PM8/9/12

You're conflating someone acting as your parent, which you know is true,
with everything your parents say as being true.

Everything your parents say is not true.

In fact this is the common transmission method for the disease of
religion. Parent to child back many generations.

Children trust what their parents say, this is taken advantage of.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJwEAQECAAYFAlAkiuMACgkQRuP0ePfiZW5nlgQAkgFReofuORm3toEk6zPXjCbz
N3c3+5dgQpfw1vj2VYMH+GupPGtfO7EcdTCK8Y+vfMg8XpDjFUBZAGmlEjs7I1hC
Yygnyn5S5TX11CY5pq2+rn6XVsU3GUM050eKbA9y0VuaKsqQySBenUIiZGyqXSWg
S9ptgJL54U3BeTP4j6c=
=tkfe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 12:37:11 AM8/10/12

to

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:23:37 -0400
HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 6:08 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:38:50 -0400
>> HVAC<mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/8/2012 7:04 PM, Painius wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Freedom is a state of mind, not a condition" -HVAC
>>>>
>>>> Another of the very few things we agree on, Harlow. LOL !
>>>
>>> You should ALWAYS follow my teachings.
>>>
>>> "In the darkness I shall illuminate the way" -HVAC
>>
>> When did you first write/say that?
>
> I just sort of make things up as I go along, Fidem.

I wasn't doubting your creativity (in fact, I enjoy it very much).

> For the hell of it, I just put it into Google and what came up was
> my quote on the newsgroups, so I guess the answer is 8/8/12 at 7:38

Which date format are you using? I'm having trouble determining if you
meant August 8, 2012, or August 12, 2008, or even December 8, 2008.

> My 'Freedom' quote above was at the top of Google as well.
>
> All are free to anyone. I'm not Painus. I won't threaten copyright
> infringement LOL

The reason I asked about the date was that I wanted to know for adding
it to my quotations file (although I don't require dates for quotations,
I do make an effort to try to obtain them).

Regarding intellectual property, it's very difficult to make a case for
copyright infringement over a quotation with attribution. (It is also
important to note that in a legal context the term "intellectual
property" doesn't necessarily imply a particular level of intelligence.)

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Religion endangers us all."
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason (June 6, 2012)

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 1:00:45 AM8/10/12

to

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:07:58 -0700 (PDT)

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 10, 2:41 am, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 02:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
> > Samuel Harrigon <samharri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 8, 3:25 am, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 8/8/2012 1:57 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> > > > > On Aug 4, 10:00 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.
> >
> > > > >> 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.
> >
> > > > Please don't capitalize the word atheist unless it is the first
> > > > word in a sentence. Atheism is not a religion and atheists are
> > > > not priests.
> >
> > > > Everyone is born an atheist in that they have no belief in any
> > > > god at birth. Some atheists are fortunate to never hear
> > > > anything taught by religious preachers. Some of us have been
> > > > preached at by theists and recognized that they are merely
> > > > repeating superstitious mythology. No unlearning of anything is
> > > > required but to suggest that the learning goes back to the
> > > > beginning of time is clear evidence that you believed the
> > > > mythic fables taught by the preachers of your particular
> > > > religion. Did you have to unlearn the preachings of druids, Sun
> > > > worshipers, and Mayans?
> >
> > > > Your post is pure nonsense but you really went off the rails
> > > > when you mentioned a "true" atheist. As you have not
> > > > understanding of what atheism means, you are in no position to
> > > > credibly define it. After all, no true Hindu would try to do
> > > > such a thing. See what I mean?
> >
> > > > > 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. :-)
> >
> > > Before I joined seminary, I had to rid myself of my Atheism. Once
> > > the Atheism was all out of me and I was no longer an Atheist, I
> > > was truly free.
> >
> > How does an atheist rid oneself of atheism before becoming
> > religious?
> >
> > Ha ha! You must be on some new brand of bug spray, or was it just
> > the regulations that changed manufacturer specifications again and
> > you're just trying out the new product?

>
> Ok... then is there a way you can prove your parents are your parents?

> and the universe around you is not a fallacy?
>

> What if you are someone special and what if the entire universe was
> planted for you?

> What if your birth never happened? and What if you are actually living
> in a fabricated universe?

> After you think you were born what if everyone around you were lying?

I used to ponder stuff like this when I was around 7 years old. When I
asked my father about it, he was very interested (which is probably why
I remember this conversation quite well) and said that I could become a
science fiction author in the future with such an imagination (that's
when he also introduced me to the basic classifications of books). One
of his favourite authors was Isaac Asimov, and so he cited partial
examples of Asimov's (and others) stories over the years as part of
encouraging my creativity since I was extremely analytical back then (I
never did read any of Isaac Asimov's works, but he's on my list of
interesting authors to read).

As for your questions posed to me, they are fun concepts to ponder for
a while, but solipsism doesn't really interest me much anymore. If
proof that solipsism was correct ever came to fruition, the next
questions that many people would likely ask are: So what? How does
this change my life?

Here's a hypothetical question for you: Do you expect reality to
suddenly be discontinued or somehow terminated if solipsism is actually
proven to be correct at some point?

> Then all your experiments and readings will be a fallacy?
>

> If you are true Atheist start this way because you do not want to
> believe.
> B'se if you believing one and disbelieving another that is a problem
> in your rational arguments.

You seem to have a rigid "black-and-white" view of things. Due to the
giant "grey area" that is a natural part of living in a society, I can
assure you that it's possible for atheists to also be solipsists.

This is the definition of atheism (the absence of belief in dieties and
supernatural agents) that I rely on:

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheism.pl

What I also find interesting is that you're assuming that atheists are
required to always present rational arguments. This is also not
necessary to qualify as an atheist since atheism is not a position
regarding deities and supernatural agents (because it's an absence of
position), and because rational arguments regarding non-theism concepts
are beyond the scope of atheism.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Why talk to atheists if you have doubts about science? Why not talk
to a scientist? Wouldn't that make more sense? Of course I am
assuming that making sense is something that you value."
-- Thomas "Gudloos" P. (April 22, 2012)

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 1:08:40 AM8/10/12

to

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:34:30 -0700 (PDT)

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 10, 7:16 am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-08-10, Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> False dichotomy.
>>>
>>> Correct

>>>
>>> Ok... then is there a way you can prove your parents are your
>>> parents?
>>

>> Yep, genetic testing. Using done on the Maury Show!
>

> How do you know its not fabricated just for you? How do you know you
> are not in a staged universe?

[snip]

This reminds me of the few times I observed some of my friends getting
high on pot. Once they were high, they'd start asking all sorts of
questions like this. The answers, well, if you can all them answers,
were sometimes the most outrageous non-sequiturs I've ever heard,
although they certainly were entertaining.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"One need not invent things to point out the failures of theism."
-- Free Lunch (April 28, 2012)

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 1:10:42 AM8/10/12

to

On Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:08:40 -0700 (PDT)

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's illogical because atheism is the "absence of belief in deities
and supernatural agents" (and atheism is the classification of
atheists).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor
is it categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the
definition of 'religious' to encompass atheism tends to result in many
other aspects of human behavior suddenly becoming classed as
'religious' as well; such as science, politics, and watching TV."
-- Zacharias Mulletstein (August 7, 2012)

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 1:20:43 AM8/10/12

to

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:29:01 -0500
Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 5:00 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:57:25 -0500
> > Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/9/2012 9:41 AM, Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> >>> On Aug 9, 6:52 pm, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>>> Wow! That's great. How long ago were you told about the Higgs
> >>>> Boson? Does it appear on one of your ancient holy books? Can you
> >>>> explain dark matter to us also?
> >>>
> >>> Everything is told. But like in a lecture "we" don't understand
> >>> everything we are taught, so is the case with people who are
> >>> unable to explain.
> >>
> >> Okay. You were 'told' the reason for gravity but don't understand
> >> it. That doesn't seem very helpful to me. Recall that earlier you
> >> noted that "atheists did not have a problem living without knowing
> >> the reason for gravity." Now you've admitted you don't understand
> >> the reason for gravity. I have to ask this question: Do you have a
> >> problem living without knowing the reason for gravity?
> >
> > That is so beautifully laid out. I am very interested in seeing any
> > theist's genuine response to this, especially if it's an attempt at
> > impartial philosophizing (come one folks, do it as if you need to
> > make Friedrich Nietzsche proud).
> >
> >> Are you also claiming that whoever 'told' you the reason for
> >> gravity was unable to explain it well enough for you to understand?
> >
> > From the standpoint of impartiality, it's important to note that
> > there are many atheists who also don't understand, so this isn't a
> > comment specifically targeting theists in general, rather; it's a
> > fair question.
> >
> >>> Again, there is a restriction imposed after a certain level of
> >>> understanding is achieved. May be people in the society might
> >>> misuse the teachings.
> >>
> >> Who imposes the restriction? The teacher?
> >
> > Ha ha! Usually it's the students.
> >
> >>> For e.g. The upon knowing the formula for Atom Bomb people might
> >>> misuse them.
> >>
> >> Imagine the horrors if someone were to misuse the reason for
> >> gravity. I'm asking you to do it because I can't imagine any way
> >> it could be misused.
> >
> > Misuse of gravity? Ha ha! That concept is epic.
> >
> > I am enjoying this post so much, thank you Dakota! This was truly
> > excellent, and I hope you'll find the quotation below my signature
> > fitting also.
>
> Thanks, Fidem. Every now and again I have a good day.

You're welcome.

> Has there ever been a post here at a.a for which an apt quote from
> Douglas Adams couldn't be found? I, for one, doubt it. I really miss
> that guy. Have you read anything from Terry Pratchett's Diskworld
> series? He's the only author I've yet found that comes close to
> matching Adams.

Sir Terence David John "Terry" Pratchett is next on my list of authors
to read for his Discworld series, and I moved him to the top of my list
because of recommendations from a good number of credible participants
here in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup.

From what I've seen so far, I do get the impression that DNA was a
little bit more off-the-wall though. Do you think they would have been
an interesting team for writing a science-fiction story together?

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"There is a rumour going around that I have found god. I think this is
unlikely because I have enough difficulty finding my keys, and there is
emperical evidence that they exist."
-- Sir Terence David John "Terry" Pratchett

Jalapeno Peppers

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 1:24:36 AM8/10/12

to

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Aug 10, 7:50=A0am, Mike Lovell <dev.n...@b0h0.com> wrote:

>> > If you are an atheist you are asserting 1 of their statement "there is
>> > GOD behind everything" is false and others are correct.... why?
>> > believe everything is incorrect and start....
>>
>> No I'm not asserting that.
>>
>> I don't *know* God doesn't exist, I just don't believe God does.
>Good, that does not make you an atheist

Are you a fucking idiot? Yes it does, he lacks belief in the gods, ya
fucking moron.

Christopher A. Lee

unread,

Aug 10, 2012, 2:20:12 AM8/10/12

to

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:22:30 -0500, Mike Lovell <dev....@b0h0.com>
wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On 2012-08-10, Ganesh J. Acharya <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Can you prove "There was Newton"?
>>>
>>> You want proof that Isaac Newton existed? Yes I can prove this.
>>
>> How?
>
>Are you playing dumb?
>
>If you don't know the answer to that question already, quite frankly
>there's no point attempting intelligent discussion with you. It would
>be like teaching a donkey to place chess.

It's a standard dishonesty from a theist who has painted himself into
a corner, the lapse into solipsism "you can't prove anything".