On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:06:29 -0700 (PDT)

Atheism does not involve belief, and it has no need for a foundation...

You're both basing your incorrect conclusions on the invalid assumption
that all atheists are anti-theistic, and the invalid assumption that
your deity can be proven to exist because a story book makes that claim.

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

Atheism, which is not a position because it's merely a classification
of the "absence of belief in deities and supernatural agents," doesn't
support nor oppose any claims regarding the existence of your deities.

You're targeting the wrong group, for your conflict is with those who
are anti-theistic, which also includes theists who follow religions
other than yours where they exhibit anti-theistic sentiments toward
religions that they don't approve of.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"God is a guess."
   -- Dr. Albert Einstein

In article <20120516213803.403eefd8.godd...@fidemturbare.com>,
godd...@fidemturbare.com says...

Let's plod for fun. Atheism is a word. The word does not believe one
thing or another other than possibly believing all humans should spell
it correctly. Dogmatic prig!
The word is used usually to reference a way people think about god. They
must think about god in some fashion otherwise they would not use Theo
in their -ism.

People who do not think about god at all might be said to follow  
[silence] or "What?!?ism" or a branch of "Huh?!?ism" if faced with
either a raging theist or atheist.

Since you seem to be a rarity (aka: a reasonable person) maybe the
school of "Humm, is that so? I had no idea all this was going on -ism"
might suddenly appear.

On Thu, 17 May 2012 08:54:10 -0400

Atheism (regardless of the misspellings) isn't something that people
follow, rather it's merely a classification that's well-explained on
http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheism.pl as the following:

   * Atheism is the "absence of belief in deities and supernatural
agents."  The letter "a" in "atheism" is a prefix meaning "without",
thus "atheism" means "without theism."

That explanation makes a lot of sense to me, and I believe most people
would find it to be rational, particularly in light of the fact that
being anti-theistic is a separate matter that anyone can practice
regardless of whether they're a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist.

We're all born "absent" of belief in anything.  To believe in a deity
and/or its supernatural agents first requires knowledge and a
conceptualization of what is to be believed.  This is not available to
us until later in life.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"I understand the importance of bondage between parent and child."
   -- Dan Quayle

In article <20120517080434.881c7b28.godd...@fidemturbare.com>,
godd...@fidemturbare.com says...

yet using theism as an part of an identity. Neither an atheist or theist
could exist as ideas without one another.

Given a world composed of either all theists or all atheists, neither
could imagine the other. Which essentially proves the logical
consistency in which both exist.

the only problem I have with your position is that it depends upon
reaction therefore essentially being controlled by and dependent upon
the necessity of an opposition (the 'anti'). It's too neatly chained to
a 180 to be a basis for a well reasoned -ism. This is Myopinionism, of
course, which I fundamentally follow 360.

Wrong.

If theism stopped existing there would be no theists and everybody
woul be trivially atheist.

No.

Atheism is a non-event, no different than not believing in pixies.
Simply a demographic label for what somebody isn't.

On Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:03 -0400

Theism *is* a part of many peoples' identities as it defines one aspect
of who they are.

That's not correct, for there is no inter-dependence between an atheist
and a theist.  Being an "atheist" comes naturally to everyone because
it is a classification without requirements, while being a "theist" on
the other hand requires having faith in a theology that includes belief
in the relevant deities and/or supernatural agents.

An implicit interdependence could be reasonably argued for in the
context of an anti-theist vs. a theist because their positions are
obviously diametrically opposed.

I suspect your confusion may be originating from an incorrect
assumption that atheism is anti-theistic, but there is a distinct
difference as is explained quite simply on these web pages:

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

http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/anti-theistic.pl

Your premise that "neither could imagine the other" is flawed
fundamentally because people are capable of imagining the others, as
countless books by both theist and atheist others serve as but one
example for.

Also, nobody is questioning whether theists and atheists exist.

Although the prefix "anti" is one of opposition, it doesn't actually
depend on a reaction.  The "reaction" to an anti-theistic position could
very well be dependent on a theistic position since theism is what is
being opposed, but this doesn't prevent someone from presenting their
anti-theistic views to an audience that doesn't object (such as with an
audience comprised solely of anti-theists, similar to "preaching to the
choir").

"Too neatly" seems to be an arbitrary judgement, unless you can provide
a logical justification for it.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"To give real service you must add something which cannot be bought or
measured with money, and that is sincerity and integrity."
   -- Douglas Noel Adams, Satirical Statistical Scientist

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

Atheist in the sense of hard atheist not in the sense of agnostic, true
enough.  It takes letting a religion define the field of debate to have
one.  Agnostic or soft atheist can happen without.

That's incorrect by observation.  Agnosticism comes natural to some
people.  A sizable fraction of the population do not have direct
experience of the numinous.  Plenty of people do have direct experiences
of the numinous.  Such experiences are always subjective and internal to
an individual but they happen with regularity to a sizable fraction of
the population.

Some of those who have direct experience of the numinous conclude its
delusion or take the experiences in directions other than religious.
Others accept that the experience happened.  For them it's not an act of
faith it's a matter of personal observation.

Arguments about atheism that depend on claims that no one has
experiences of supernatural agents are like arguments that rain never
happens because I live indoors so it's never rained on me.

And because the debate ignores intermediate stances in between the two
extremes.

Sure.  Making no distinction between the hard and soft atheist stance or
not using agnostic.  Seen it.  Not impressed.  In practice plentiful
posts by atheists are of the denier camp.  You for example as your post
above denies that others experience wha tthey do.

exactly // once they experience jesus christ
flowing over them, flowing inside every orifice

spraying them with his love // his creamy-creamy love

it happened to me, other people cannot deny it
it happened, it is true /// as true as the alien abduction
in my youth

i4z

On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

There isn't an "atheist belief".

Theists who can't think outside the box imagine there is one.

But to the atheists whose position they keep getting wrong, it is no
different than not believing in fairies.

Even for those few who say they are no gods, it's sloppy use of
language akin to saying there are no ghosts,

Because gods are only important to believers in exactly the same way
ghosts are only important to those who believe in them.

Wrong.

Nobody is theist until they are taught to be.

So everybody is born atheist.

Atheism and agnosticism are about different things.

Atheists are at the zero point of the "belief in any god or gods"
axis.

Agnostics are at the zero point of a knowledge axis about something
inside the theist paradigm.

Atheists are completely outside this paradigm.

If theists and others twist language to tell atheists who don't fit
their misrepresentation that we are "really" agnostic then they
themselves are agnostic because they only believe, they don't know and
only think they do.

It's a matter of rationalisation in terms of what they already
believe.

No.

They are because stupid theists insist we take their bullshit
seriously and are completely incapable of backing it up with anything
but rationalisations for what they already believe in terms of those
same beliefs.

What "two extremes"?

Either one is theist or one isn't.

That's how the "a-" works - it shows the absence of the prefixed
property.

Which makes it binary.

Only if you can't step aside from your ignorant preconceptions and
ignore what an atheist actually is, and why people outside the theist
paradigm can't be described according to presumptions only granted
inside it.

Your statements below are clear assertions of belief and they are
contrary to the experiences of many.

Which part is wrong?  That many never have experiences of the numinous?
That many do have experiences of the numinous?  That experiences of the
numinous are internal?  All are correct observations.

Assertion without evidence as many people do have experiences of the
numinous, many of them make religious conclusions about such experiences
and you have no way of tracking how early such experiences happen.

Fun word games but the fact of numinous experiences remains.

As do you.  So what.

Assertion without evidence.  If I can find someone who was agnostic
before they had a numinous experience then become a theist based on such
an experience your assertion is shown incorrect.  Given how many people
are converts this should not be a difficult task.  Wanna bet you'll
redefine the terms again should I start offering names?

Yes.  Your denial has no more weight than my assertion.  The point that
people have numinous experiences that result in religious conversions
remains.

Insults ar eall you've got?  Got it.  Plonk.  And the point of people
having numinous experiences remains.

On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

Why do you feel the need to lie about atheists, to atheists?

I've never understood why so many non-atheists are so arrogantly nasty
they imagine they get to tell atheists what it means to atheists to be
atheist.

What do you imagine qualifies you to tell atheists what it means to
them to be atheist, liar?

What a fucking moron, A liar as well as an idiot.

Fact, not word games, pathological liar.

Where do I do that, pathological liar?

I'm redefining nothing,pathological liar.

I'm merely telling you what it means to an atheist to be one,
pathological lair.

Only if they already believe in gods.

If they don't, they don't rationalise experiences in terms of them any
more than you rationalise them in terms of pixies.

Why don't you (a) learn to read, and (b) stop lying about atheists to
atheists?

In article <gbncr71i0nft9ikbjqa0n1ol72a3dc5...@4ax.com>,
ca...@optonline.net says...
Wrong

If no theists, one could not imagine an atheist since there would be
nothing known to be 'a' to. You must force the theist to exist by saying
'stopped existing' implying some memory of theist lingers.

Any 'anti' demands the opposit otherwise whatever follows anti is
unknown and so meaningless.

In article <20120518102017.819e926d.godd...@fidemturbare.com>,
godd...@fidemturbare.com says...

We are dealing with assumed personal identity based upon words. Anyone
who does not hold to any god concept and maintains no such
interdependence would not think of themselves as atheist. They would not
identify themselves at all in relation to the non-existence of a god. An
atheist or theist might identify them as atheist but that is as far as
it goes.

Treating any -ism as if separated from a individual human grounding as
if the -ism acts, does or says things presents a trans-ism sameness
which results in dogmatics.

My premise is based upon a valid condition of the absolute removal of
one idea to illustrate the interdependence with another. The anti-
imperialist must have imperialism to remain anti-.

Are we not agreeing on the definition of re-action? First an act which
then causes and so defines a reaction to that act?

.. and what usually happens? First any sort of straw men are created to
present the foe held in common by the group. A closer a-theistic group
would be a model airplane club, let's say, where the all notions of god
are irrelevant and so never discussed. Any group in this position would,
as a human group, be closer to the atheism I think you describe.

180 is neat as it is the exact compass opposite direction of 000. I see
this as an accurate figurative to capture any notion of 'anti' or 'a'
here. Given this discussion is about primal human belief which, to me,
is driven by a deep human commonality shared by all people everywhere
always, namely fear and an innate need for order, being simply 'anti' in
this is too neat. I think all Gods are a form among many other forms
which follow a genetic drive common to all people.

Keeping this issue on an -ism level only goes not so very far. As you
will agree I think, the issue is more immediate, pragmatic and
political. So essentially how people act not what they claim to think or
believe becomes the point in all of this.

Excellent discussion, thank you.

In article <opddr75kgn68ll7khhqmjsp60d1seg7...@4ax.com>,
ca...@optonline.net says...

No one is born with the knowledge of one or the other. To know oneself
as being an atheist one must know what a theist is. If knowlege of self
is not made an issue then everything is based upon assumption. So it is
equally valid to say "Everybody was born a theist."

Why are you so such an aggressively in-your-face, stupid liar?

No moron, everybody would be atheist,- they just wouldn't know it.

So what, imbecile?

Why can't you morons accept what an atheist actually is?

Hint: somebody who is absent the property of being theist.

If there were no theists, everybody would be absent that property.

They just wouldn't know it.

Stop playing stupid word games.

It would leave an enormous hole in the lives of theists.

And the only effect on atheists would be that we wouldn't be subject
to the endless stream of in-our-face stupidity from assholes like you.

No, liar, we are dealing with a simple demographic description meaning
"none of the above" when it comes to gods.

Not the "personal assumed identity" you are lying about.

Why do you feel the need to do this?

Where do you get this bullshit from?

I was eight when I discovered that theists exist, and the only changes
this made to me were (a) that the existence of theists got added to my
experience, and (b) that I was called an atheist and treated as a
pariah by the class teacher and the class's.

We don't, liar.

It's a demographic description meaning "none of the above" when it
comes to gods.

And it's a non-event until assholes like you wipe your stupidity and
rudeness in our faces.

It's not an "-ism" but the absence of somebody else's "-ism",
pig-ignorant, arrogant, in-your-face, lliar.

Why is it so hard for you pathetic, stupid, arrogant, in-your-face
morons to grasp that atheism isn't an idea but the simple absence of
somebody else's idea?

So what?

In spite of your lies about us, to us, atheism isn't anti= anything.

Get help.

Seriously.

More stupid word games.

The straw men are yours, in-your-face liar.

Just like they are to atheists, imbecile.

Yet another bad analogy.

What an arrogantly nasty, stupid piece of work.

Only if you're a pig-ignorant moron who won't let "atheist" mean what
atheists actually are, imbecile.

Hint: atheists describing themselves will tell you that all it takes
to be atheist, is not being any kind of theist.

Because we are part of the world beyond the theist's paradigm, we
cannot be describes as though theistic presumptions and dogmas even
applied to us, and we certainly don't have any of the various
positions theists invent for us.

Why not have the honesty to admit this instead of inventing straw men
to attack out of bigoted ignorance?

On May 18, 1:46 pm, IAM 4ZION <iam4zionm...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have no problem accepting the realities of personal human experience
exist as biochemical products of the brain.

However, I wouldn’t accept feelings and emotions as an argument for
the existence of a god. People who believe in god based on faith are
likely to falsely attribute experiences to god that can be explained
by other things – feelings of joy and awe during a worship service
that should be attributed to powerful music, feelings of love and
devotion that should be attributed to a powerful sermon.

There is always the possibility of some other form of experience, like
an intense vision, that could give a person a legitimate reason to
believe. But to be clear, someone else’s experience is not a reason
for other people to accept that person’s faith. Their god would have
to interact with every convert personally to convince them in the same
way. Until that happens, my personal human experience tells me that
there is no reason to believe in god.

http://www.atheistunderworld.com/category/logical-fallacy/

On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:40:18 -0400

(I should clarify:  There is no "exclusive" interdependence between an
atheist and a theist...)

You appear to be deliberately missing my point, which I suspect may
actually be a subtle tactic to divert me away from my focus on
objective truth for the purpose of commencing debate between opposing
points of subjectivity that are seemingly founded in objective truth.

"Atheism" implicitly is a direct example of impartiality because it
merely is the "absence" of belief in deities and supernatural agents,
and does not contain intrinsic anti-theistic elements:

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

That's a non-sequitur because one doesn't have to identify oneself as
something to be classified therein.  For example, babies obviously
aren't aware that they are infants, and yet they are most certainly and
logically classifed as such.

The "interdependence" that I referred to provides meaningful
perspective on the words in question.

No, it doesn't result in dogmatics because dogmatics is merely the
systematic study of religious dogmas.  In fact, one doesn't have to
actually believe in dogmas to be effective at studying them (and I
suspect that those who aren't theologists to be typically better
inclined to be more objective in the field of dogmatics).

You seem to be understanding the basic idea.  Here are eight examples
that can also be used to demonstrate interdependence:

   * Up v. Down
   * In v. Out
   * Hot v. Cold
   * Push v. Pull
   * Good v. Evil
   * White v. Black (note that these are not colours)
   * Opened v. Closed
   * Anti-theist v. Theist

Atheism is, clearly and distinctly, an absence of belief in deities
and supernatural agents; it is not a position that is supportive,
oppositional, nor neutral, with regard to any theistic or anti-theistic
position since it is, very simply, not a position.

In the context of interdependence, atheism is the opposite of the
presence of any belief in deities and/or supernatural agents.  An
anti-theistic position, on the other hand, is not so clearly defined
because it is an opposition to beliefs that may be founded in a
particular theology wherein a theist is attacking other theologies, or
may be an atheist attacking one/some/all theologies, or may be an
agnostic who chooses to attack both theists and anti-theists because of
what they consider to be a lack of L.O.V.E. (Logical, Objective,
Verifiable Evidence) from either side, etc.

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

Your definition appears to be dependent on the immediate actions of
another, but reactions are possible even in the absence of such actions,
such as a reaction to an observation of inaction (which is, by the way,
the interdependent opposite of action).  Consider a painting on the
wall of an art museum that's been hanging in the same spot for more
than 100 years; without action it may still ellicit reaction.

Google provides this definition (google "define reaction" without the
quotation marks) which I find to be reasonable:

# re·ac·tion (noun):
#
# 1. An action performed or a feeling experienced in response to a
# situation or event:  "Carrie's immediate reaction was one of relief."
#
# 2. A person's ability to respond physically and mentally to external
# stimuli.

That's an excellent example that demonstrates what atheism is.  Yes,
the model airplane club is atheistic in that context, for they are
exclusively focused on model airplanes [and, assumedly, not including
religious involvement].  The individual members may be theists,
atheists, agnostics, etc., but if they don't engage a religious
prosylitzer who interrupts their activities and instead just ask them
to leave them alone, then that would also be taking an atheistic
approach to handling the matter rationally.

This reminds me of a most excellent quotation from a participant here
in this "alt.atheism" newsgroup that I think parallels this quite well:

"Atheism is no more a belief than not collecting stamps is a hobby."
   -- Daniel San

To take your example slightly further, the members of that model
airplane club may or may not also be stamp collectors, and if one of
them tried to impose stamp collecting on others during a model airplane
club function that's not focused on stamp collecting, the same response
of "please leave us alone" would be equally appropriate.

The problem I find with religious prosyletizers is, unlike stamp
collectors, they seem to think that a person's life or afterlife is at
risk if they don't find some sort of salvation in their form of "stamp
collecting" (to use a metaphor), hence this need to convert others is
lacking in consideration for their personal freedoms -- it's no wonder
that people push back, but because of these corrupt moral views the
theists often misinterpret atheistic self-defense as an attack on their
beliefs (which, of course, misses the point).

In the end, we atheists aren't saying that your religion shouldn't be
practiced, we're just saying "don't force your mental slavery on us"
because it interferes with our natural right to be free.

Your logic is flawed with regard to the "a-" prefix because, while
"anti-" indicates non-neutral opposition, the "a-" prefix simply means
"without" and therefore is a non-sequitur to the "anti-" prefix since
it can be applied equally well regarding both theism and anti-theism.

Your premise that "all people everywhere" share a commonality in fear
and the need for order is incorrect, for there are many reckless people
who have no fear (many of them are not insane), and there are also many
messy people who care not to hire a housekeeper even though they can
easily afford one and don't mind throwing their money away.  There are
also many different things that are feared by many different people in
non-overlapping ways, not to mention the wide range of standards of
what qualifies as "order" (some people actually prefer disorder and
can't relax in its absence -- just look at the television show called
"Hoarders" for one example of how disorder is often used as a means to
cope with tragedy or something seemingly equal in scale to the subject).

Your assertion that "anti" is "too neat" also contradicts your claim
that "all people everywhere" share an "innate need for order."

Obviously that's incorrect or else this "alt.atheism" newsgroup would
very likely be comparable to an abandoned cowboy town (with spam
representing the remaining filthy little rodents that often make ghost
towns their homes) assuming someone created it as a joke (after all,
there wouldn't be any otherwise rational reason for this if your
statement were true, would there?).

...

read more »

On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:49:02 -0400

Being born as an atheist doesn't require knowing it.  On the same vein,
being born as an infant doesn't require knowing it.

Atheism is a classification of the "absence of belief in deities and
supernatural agents."  If you still deny that all newborns are atheists
now that its definition is clear, then the burden of proof is upon you.

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

That's not valid (unless you're hinting at "born again Christians" but
that would be wierd because they'd have to be in a womb for ~9 months
first to make this happen).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Atheism:  It's the logical choice."
   -- Johnny Zondo (March 2010)

On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
[snip]

Did you report your abduction experience?

http://www.ufocentre.com/

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"If Genesis is true, [then] God is running a protection racket."
   -- Barry O'Grady (April 4, 2012)

On May 19, 1:36 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

Id rather not /// the anal probing with rather deep so
i dont want to go into it again

weird thing was i saw the alien again in church
doing a sermon!

small world (or universe)

i4z

"Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.2a216b02de8b61bd98983d@news.eternal-september.org...

On the other hand to be an atheist one need only to have no belief in a
deity; there is no need to know anything.

If knowlege of self

Except that nobody at birth has developed the ability to believe anything,
so, no, it is not equally valid.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:41 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

There is no symmentry between theism and atheism.

Because atheism is the exact equivalent of not believing in the
fairies at the bottom of the garden.

No matter how many stupid, ignorant, arrogant theists insist
otherwise.