Re: Logical Inconsistency of Atheist Belief

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
US4ZION <usa4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 10:04 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > The atheist claims he knows God does
> > not exist. But this statement of negative
> > belief is impossible to ever prove. So, the
> > very foundation of atheism is fatally in error.

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

> exactly, we can prove god exists because
> the bible says it is and god wrote that by
> working humans through rods in their bottoms
>
> earlier holy books are lies though, but there by
> satan
>
> BroilJAB is right /// atheists cannot prove god
> does not exist, so god does exist and he cries
> when you masturbate and hates fags.

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

[Zerkon]

In article <20120516213803....@fidemturbare.com>,
god...@fidemturbare.com says...

> Atheism does not involve belief

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.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 08:54:10 -0400
Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article <20120516213803....@fidemturbare.com>,
> god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>
> > Atheism does not involve belief
>
> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

[Zerkon]

In article <20120517080434....@fidemturbare.com>,
god...@fidemturbare.com says...
> without theism
>

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.

> being anti-theistic is a separate matter that anyone can practice
> regardless of whether they're a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist.

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.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:03 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:

>In article <20120517080434....@fidemturbare.com>,
>god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>> without theism
>>
>
>yet using theism as an part of an identity. Neither an atheist or theist
>could exist as ideas without one another.

Wrong.

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

>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.

No.

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

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

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

Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article <20120517080434....@fidemturbare.com>,
> god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>

> > * 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."
>

> yet using theism as an part of an identity.

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

> Neither an atheist or theist could exist as ideas without one another.

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

> 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.

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.

> > 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.
>
> 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.

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

[Doug Freyburger]

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:

> Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>
>> Neither an atheist or theist could exist as ideas without one another.
>
> That's not correct, for there is no inter-dependence between an atheist
> and a theist.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

> 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

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.

[IAM 4ZION]

> 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

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:38:40 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>> Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Neither an atheist or theist could exist as ideas without one another.
>>
>> That's not correct, for there is no inter-dependence between an atheist
>> and a theist.
>
>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.

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.

>> 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.
>
>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.

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.

>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.

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

>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.

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.

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

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.

>> 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
>
>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.

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.

[Doug Freyburger]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>> Zerkon <Z...@z.net> 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.
>
> There isn't an "atheist belief".

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

>>> 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.
>>
>>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.
>
> Wrong.

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.

> Nobody is theist until they are taught to be.
> So everybody is born atheist.

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.

> Atheism and agnosticism are about different things.

Fun word games but the fact of numinous experiences remains.

> If theists and others twist language ...

As do you. So what.

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

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?

>>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.
>
> No.

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

> They are because stupid theists insist we take their bullshit

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

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
<dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> Doug Freyburger <dfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
>>>> Zerkon <Z...@z.net> 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.
>>
>> There isn't an "atheist belief".
>
>Your statements below are clear assertions of belief and they are
>contrary to the experiences of many.

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.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>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.

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

>> Nobody is theist until they are taught to be.
>> So everybody is born atheist.
>
>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.

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

>> Atheism and agnosticism are about different things.
>
>Fun word games but the fact of numinous experiences remains.

Fact, not word games, pathological liar.

>> If theists and others twist language ...
>
>As do you. So what.

Where do I do that, pathological liar?

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

I'm redefining nothing,pathological liar.

>>>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.
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes. Your denial has no more weight than my assertion. The point that

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

>people have numinous experiences that result in religious conversions
>remains.

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.

>> They are because stupid theists insist we take their bullshit
>
>Insults ar eall you've got? Got it. Plonk. And the point of people
>having numinous experiences remains.

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

[Zerkon]

In article <gbncr71i0nft9ikbj...@4ax.com>,
ca...@optonline.net says...

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

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.

[Zerkon]

In article <20120518102017....@fidemturbare.com>,
god...@fidemturbare.com says...

> 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.
>

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.

> 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.

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-.

> Although the prefix "anti" is one of opposition, it doesn't actually
> depend on a reaction.

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

> 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").

.. 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.

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

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.

[Zerkon]

In article <opddr75kgn68ll7kh...@4ax.com>,
ca...@optonline.net says...

> Nobody is theist until they are taught to be.
>
> So everybody is born atheist.
>

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."

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 07:31:37 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:

>In article <gbncr71i0nft9ikbj...@4ax.com>,
>ca...@optonline.net says...
>> Wrong.
>>
>> If theism stopped existing there would be no theists and everybody
>> woul be trivially atheist.
>>
>Wrong

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

>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.

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

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

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.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:40:18 -0400, Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:

>In article <20120518102017....@fidemturbare.com>,
>god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>> 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.
>>
>
>We are dealing with assumed personal identity based upon words.

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?

> Anyone
>who does not hold to any god concept and maintains no such
>interdependence would not think of themselves as atheist.

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.

> They would not
>identify themselves at all in relation to the non-existence of a god.

We don't, liar.

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

> An
>atheist or theist might identify them as atheist but that is as far as
>it goes.

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

>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.

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

>> 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.
>
>My premise is based upon a valid condition of the absolute removal of
>one idea to illustrate the interdependence with another.

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?

> The anti-
>imperialist must have imperialism to remain anti-.

So what?

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

Get help.

Seriously.

>> Although the prefix "anti" is one of opposition, it doesn't actually
>> depend on a reaction.
>
>Are we not agreeing on the definition of re-action? First an act which
>then causes and so defines a reaction to that act?

More stupid word games.

>> 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").
>
>.. and what usually happens? First any sort of straw men are created to

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

>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.

Just like they are to atheists, imbecile.

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

Yet another bad analogy.

>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.

What an arrogantly nasty, stupid piece of work.

[Christopher A. Lee]

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?

[Immortalist]

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/

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:40:18 -0400
Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article <20120518102017....@fidemturbare.com>,
> god...@fidemturbare.com says...
>
> > 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.

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

> We are dealing with assumed personal identity based upon words.

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

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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).

> > 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.
>
> 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-.

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

> > Although the prefix "anti" is one of opposition, it doesn't actually
> > depend on a reaction.
>
> Are we not agreeing on the definition of re-action? First an act
> which then causes and so defines a reaction to that act?

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.

> > 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").
>
> .. 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.

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.

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

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.

> 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.

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."

> I think all Gods are a form among many other forms which follow a
> genetic drive common to all people.

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?).

> 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.

I don't agree. It's an issue because some theists perceive atheists as
a threat, and yet they routinely deny the obvious fact that every form
of life is born as an atheist -- it's our nature because theism, which
is learned, presents a set of virtues that really are just a form of
philosophical slavery which often contradict a person's true nature,
and in particular those who become extreme believers appear to me to be
suffering from something eerily similar to the Stockholm Syndrome.

> Excellent discussion, thank you.

I do look forward to reading your response. Take your time.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"My fear is my concern."
-- Lawrence of Arabia

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 09:49:02 -0400
Zerkon <Z...@z.net> wrote:
> In article <opddr75kgn68ll7kh...@4ax.com>,
> ca...@optonline.net says...
>
>> Nobody is theist until they are taught to be.
>>
>> So everybody is born atheist.
>
> 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.

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

> So it is equally valid to say "Everybody was born a theist."

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)

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
IAM 4ZION <iam4zi...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]

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

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)

[IAM 4ZION]

On May 19, 1:36 pm, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
<godd...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:46:29 -0700 (PDT)IAM 4ZION <iam4zionm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > it happened to me, other people cannot deny it
> > it happened, it is true /// as true as the alien abduction
> > in my youth
>
> Did you report your abduction experience?
>
> http://www.ufocentre.com/

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

[thomas p.]

"Zerkon" <Z...@z.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:MPG.2a216b02d...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <opddr75kgn68ll7kh...@4ax.com>,
> ca...@optonline.net says...
>> Nobody is theist until they are taught to be.
>>
>> So everybody is born atheist.
>>
>
> 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.

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
> is not made an issue then everything is based upon assumption. So it is
> equally valid to say "Everybody was born a theist."

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

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:18:41 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@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.