Faith required to be a strong atheist! (was:Re: Do I have ADD...)
dh
>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>require an act of faith.
True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge". That one is
especially funny considering the fact that if God does exist it's more
than likely some people have known/do know it, but there's no way
anyone could possibly know that God does not exist whether he actually
does exist or not.
>"Faith" is not limited to religious types, but
>that's what it generally refers to.
Faith is the degree of confidence a being has that something it
believes to be true is correct. The degree of faith--or confidence--a
person has that God does not exist, is what determines how strong an
atheist the person is or is not. If a person has no faith, then they
are not a strong atheist.
Andres64
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
> >require an act of faith.
>
> True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
> are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge".
Really? Name one. Because ime, strong atheists are by far the
minority.
Virgil
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
> >require an act of faith.
>
> True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
> are somehow superior to all others.
Believers in some god or other almost always pretend that their beliefs
are superior to all others, so it is something that comes with belief,
regardless of what that belief is.
>Amusingly, I have known of strong
> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge".
I have known many Xtains who referred to THEIR belief as knowledge.
In fact, many of them do that right here in alt.atheism.
And I presume that believers in other religions may often do the same.
> That one is
> especially funny considering the fact that if God does exist it's more
> than likely some people have known/do know it, but there's no way
> anyone could possibly know that God does not exist whether he actually
> does exist or not.
Sufficient absence of evidence can become evidence of absence.
And as far as I can see, the only evidence FOR any god is that someone
believes it exists, which does not convince when, as is the cse, there
are different such beliefs which are mutually exclusive.
--
Virgil
jaypee....@gmail.com
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
> >require an act of faith.
>
> True.
So, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, right?
thed...@comcast.net
Post Activity
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 567 285 481 860 917 473 471 394 181
2006 289 698 293 543 816 1017 768 730 1030 452 174 302
2007 497 334 398 907 635 838 1195 974 1096 522 231 440
2008 636 722 862 942 501 504 748 482 464 520 492 620
2009 704 564 561 443 282 63
Uncle Vic
>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
>>God both require an act of faith.
>
> True.
False. Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God". We simply
don't believe the claims of the religious. Of course, this is impossible
for you morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact that your god
is nothing but a belief. In fact, you idiots are perfectly willing to go
so far as to redefine the term "belief" to mean something within the
realm of reality.
It's not. Check out that monitor you're staring at. Do you believe it
is there? I don't. I KNOW it is there. Big difference. Now try to
apply that to your god.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
fasgnadh
>
> Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God".
Yet you gave money for a Bus campaign to proclaim it!
Talk about blind adherence to Dawkins worship!
> We simply don't believe the claims of the religious.
You mean the atheist regime in North Korea, according to Ritcho
and Hitcho the dual atheist deities! B^D
> Of course
Why do you worship such obvious cretins?
> this is impossible for you
Fuckin AY! B^D
But not impossible for you...
> morons to accept
You swallow more shit than all the dung beetles in Africa!
> you cannot accept the fact that your god is nothing but a belief.
like atheism;
# It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
#
#
# "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
# of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
# after being refused permission to put atheist
# advertising on buses." - The Age 29/1/2009
#
# "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
# we're not one," Dr Perkins said."
The difference is, GENUINE religion inspires and sustains
great and enduring civilisations, atheism produces
totalitarian shitholes, and NOTHING ELSE! 8^o
Even the ex-atheist Chinese Commo apparatchiks admit it:
"At the first world Buddhism forum in East China's Zhejiang
Province last year, the Chinese government acknowledged
the active role religion plays in building a harmonious society."
"For example, religious beliefs have helped cut down crime
to a large extent,"
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm
"With the gradual liberalisation that developed with
Deng Xiaoping's open door reforms, religion was no
longer proscribed. In 1982, the constitution was
amended to allow Chinese people considerable freedom
of religion."
http://cbbc.org/china_guide/religion.html
"religion has been enjoying a resurgence in China over the
past 20 years, as Communist Party disapproval has eased"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6337627.stm
"Religious believers thrice the estimate
By Wu Jiao (China Daily)
"A survey has found that the number of religious believers
is three times bigger than the official estimate.
The poll of about 4,500 people, conducted by professors Tong
Shijun and Liu Zhongyu of Shanghai-based East China Normal
University from 2005 till recently, found that 31.4 percent
of Chinese aged 16 and above or about 300 million are religious."
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-02/07/content_802994.htm
Incredible! in just a few short years the new converts from
atheism In JUST ONE COUNTRY, far outnumber the slow increase
in tiny atheist numbers in the rest of the WORLD! B^D
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAA
# Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
# -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
# fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
#
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups:
# alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,aus.politics,
# alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
#
# American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
#
# "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
#
# 2001 2008
#
# Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
#
# Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
#
# Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
#
#
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!
#
#
# 0.7% of Americans!! B^D 2.3% worldwide!!! B^D
#
# 'NON-RELIGIOUS' DOES NOT = ATHEIST, YOU DISHONEST CRETINS!
#
#
# EVEN THE AGNOSTICS BEAT YOU!!! **AND** they grew FASTER!!!! B^D
> Check out that monitor you're staring at. Do you believe it
> is there? I don't. I KNOW it is there.
I'm using a data video projector on a wall! B^D
You are IMAGINING SHIT again, you dumbfuck atheist LIAR!
> Big difference.
Between you and a sentient being, yes! B^D
--
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Uncle Fairy Dust
Pillock.
Faith is taking something on trust without a shred of evidence, and
since faith is the only basis for believing in these weird, logically
inconsistent god thingies, then atheism is the only honest approach to
the question of their existence.
What it takes to be an atheist is intellectual honesty, and the moral
courage to be intellectually honest in the face of stupidity,
ignorance, absurd contortions of language and logic, and the hostility
with which people defend those three things.
pearl
> One fine day in alt.atheism, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>I simply said that an absolute belief in
> >>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
> >>God both require an act of faith.
> >
> > True.
>
> False. Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God". We simply
> don't believe the claims of the religious. Of course, this is impossible
> for you morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact that your god
> is nothing but a belief.
'"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human
mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God.
[..]" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
..'
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
> In fact, you idiots are perfectly willing to go
> so far as to redefine the term "belief" to mean something within the
> realm of reality.
'"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -
it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. "
(Albert Einstein)
.. /
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
> It's not. Check out that monitor you're staring at. Do you believe it
> is there? I don't. I KNOW it is there. Big difference. Now try to
> apply that to your god.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/test3.html . That occured trying out a nice
graphics programme called "Ultimate FX", just putting the Windows
clouds screen image through a few simple filters. Could you explain?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C1F302...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>> >>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
>> >>God both require an act of faith.
>> >
>> > True.
>>
>> False. Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God". We simply
>> don't believe the claims of the religious. Of course, this is impossible
>> for you morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact that your god
>> is nothing but a belief.
>
>'"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human
>mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God.
>[..]" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
>..'
>http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
Yet another lying theist using an out of context or even made up quote
they think somehow proves anything.
Keep reading this FAQ until it finally dawns on you that his out of
context quote doesn't mean what you morons imagine, let alone is the
"argument" from authority that proves nothing anyway:
It is extracted and annotated from Einstein's original article
at...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm
although it can be found in many other places on the net for those
botheerd to look.
Which you should have done before embarrassing yourself.
"This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49.
The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological
Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years,
New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from
Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the
Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to
the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941."
"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their
conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional
endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any
considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of
religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is
rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious
feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone
who is entirely without it, especially as there is no
anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."
===> It takes an exceptional individual to rise beyond an
anthropomorphic concept of God.
===> Very difficult to elucidate the feeling of cosmic awe to anyone
who is entirely without it because there is no anthropomorphic
conception of God corresponding to it.
"The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the
sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature
and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a
sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single
significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling
already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of
the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we
have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer,
contains a much stronger element of this."
===> Those two paragraphs clarify what Einstein calls his religious
beliefs were. The sort of thing he describes elsewhere as his
awe for the wonders of the universe.
In short, his references to "Spinoza's God". He is in awe of it.
Nowhere does he say he worships it. Which would be silly because
it's not a personal God.
And while we feel the same awe, it would never occur to us to
call it "God".
The only people who do, can't throw off the language of the
belief they grew up with.
"The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this
kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived
in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central
teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics
of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind
of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their
contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in
this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are
closely akin to one another."
===> Kind of religious feeling, no dogma and no God conceived in
man's image.
"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to
another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no
theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and
science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are
receptive to it."
===> No definite notion of a God and no theology.
"We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to
religion very different from the usual one. When one views the
matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and
religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious
reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal
operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the
idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided,
of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really
seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little
for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is
inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are
determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's
eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is
responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been
charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's
ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education,
and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hopes of reward after death."
===> He's describing the traditional religionist view of science.
Now he describes how he sees it in terms of his own "religious"
views. His cosmological religious feeling. His awe for the
wonders of the universe:
"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves
are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist
between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.
Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has,
nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what
means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued
with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there
also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid
for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to
reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that
profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science
without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
===> I don't like his saying that the sort of feeling towards the
universe that scientists have, springs from religion. Because
it doesn't.
His use of the words religion and God have convinced the hard of
thinking that he was something he wasn't.
But given his painstaking explanation of what he means by the
words, I suppose we can't blame him.
No scientist I know has "profound faith". But again he's using
the word in a different way religionists do.
I wish Einstein and others didn't use this kind of religious
language. It means that believers with an axe to grind always
get his views wrong.
But it has to be remembered that this address was to a
theological seminary. So he had to use religious language to
get his point across.
When read in the original context, it is blatantly obvious that
the Liars For God who produce the books of mined quotes are
totally twisting he said and meant.
He was not talking about what is generally understood by
religion or God - let alone about their religion and its God.
Syd
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >
> > Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God".
>
> Yet you gave money for a Bus campaign to proclaim it!
>
> Talk about blind adherence to Dawkins worship!
>
And yet, your silence when Christers do the same thing is deafening.
> > We simply don't believe the claims of the religious.
>
> You mean the atheist regime in North Korea, according to Ritcho
> and Hitcho the dual atheist deities! B^D
>
Boy, you just love that lie, don't you, Failednuts?
Pity it is not, and continues to not be true.
PDW
fasgnadh
> On Jun 3, 4:31 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Uncle Vic wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God".
>>
>> Yet you gave money for a Bus campaign to proclaim it!
>>
>> Talk about blind adherence to Dawkins worship!
>>
>
> And yet, your silence when Christers do the same thing is deafening.
That would be for two very good reasons;
1. they are not advertising beliefs they claim not to have! B^D
(you really are thicker than two short planks! B^) and
2. I wasn't paying for any of it! B^]
You and Uncle Zit are like too bookends made out
the same material, common in alt.atheism.. Idiotonium! B^D
--
fasgnadh: wrote:
Tankman Tango - Dancing on the Grave of Maoist Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMBTuFbLQH4&feature=related
Remembering the defeat of atheist tyranny - God wins, AGAIN!
June 4 is the 20th anniversary of the massacre of protestors
at Tiananmen Square,
Learn the steps; B^D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLFmet0pbvw
"step left, and right, ..together
rise up! " B^D
----------
How sad it is to have no sense
of Spirit and of Immanence! 8..(
Bound up in the material world
blind to the Beauty now unfurled. 8^o
China and Russia were Atheist States
now they proclaim that God is great! B^D
People who worshipped idols like Mao
now reject the atheists sacred fat cow! B^]
The East and the West now both advance
In the Footsteps of the Lord of the Dance! ;^}
pearl
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:28:30 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C1F302...@216.196.97.131...
> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, dh@. wrote:
> >>
> >> >>I simply said that an absolute belief in
> >> >>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
> >> >>God both require an act of faith.
> >> >
> >> > True.
> >>
> >> False. Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God". We simply
> >> don't believe the claims of the religious. Of course, this is impossible
> >> for you morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact that your god
> >> is nothing but a belief.
> >
> >'"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human
> >mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God.
> >[..]" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
> >..'
> >http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
>
> Yet another lying theist using an out of context or even made up quote
> they think somehow proves anything.
I'm not lying, it's not a 'made up quote', the meaning is clear, and nothing
you quoted below contradicts it. Decide what you really want to discuss -
God, or religion, because the two don't necessarily refer to the same thing.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:e5sc25pipqol1iev9...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:28:30 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C1F302...@216.196.97.131...
>> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, dh@. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>> >> >>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
>> >> >>God both require an act of faith.
>> >> >
>> >> > True.
>> >>
>> >> False. Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God". We simply
>> >> don't believe the claims of the religious. Of course, this is impossible
>> >> for you morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact that your god
>> >> is nothing but a belief.
>> >
>> >'"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human
>> >mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God.
>> >[..]" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
>> >..'
>> >http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
>>
>> Yet another lying theist using an out of context or even made up quote
>> they think somehow proves anything.
>
>I'm not lying, it's not a 'made up quote', the meaning is clear, and nothing
>you quoted below contradicts it. Decide what you really want to discuss -
>God, or religion, because the two don't necessarily refer to the same thing.
Stop lying.
Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
"God".
Why didn't you read the FAQ you were given before telling us again
just how ignorant, stupid and dishonest you are?
Read it this time and admit your "mistake".
John Locke
>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>>require an act of faith.
>
> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>
Its not a matter of faith. Given the fact that science has explained
how nature really works and given the fact that you people have
provided NO EVIDENCE for the existence of god reduces the probablity
of the existence of god to .00000001 %. Its safe to assume that the
existence of god or anything supernatural is almost nil. No faith
required.
_______________________________________________________________
If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school
children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around
their necks instead of crosses." [Lenny Bruce]
Christopher A. Lee
<johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>>>require an act of faith.
>>
>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>
>Its not a matter of faith. Given the fact that science has explained
>how nature really works and given the fact that you people have
>provided NO EVIDENCE for the existence of god reduces the probablity
>of the existence of god to .00000001 %. Its safe to assume that the
>existence of god or anything supernatural is almost nil. No faith
>required.
What message do these in-your-face nasty Liars For God imagine they
tell about themselves when they keep repeating the same lies about us,
to us and ignoring correction?
Why are they so mind-bogglingly stupid that they can't grasp the rest
of the world beyond their religion?
pearl
Stop making false accusations.
> Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
Einstein was a scientist.
> And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
> "God".
How so very presumptious of you to claim to know what I mean.
> Why didn't you read the FAQ you were given before telling us again
> just how ignorant, stupid and dishonest you are?
I read it the last time you posted it in reply to the same quotes. I still
can't believe just how ignorant, stupid and self-deluded you are to think
the "FAQ" in any way supports your claims that "God" doesn't exist.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
He talked about both, moron, and it explains why yo0o0u got his POV
wrong.
>Stop making false accusations.
Stop lying.
>> Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
>
>Einstein was a scientist.
What has that got to do with it, imbecile?
>> And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
>> "God".
>
>How so very presumptious of you to claim to know what I mean.
Hardly,moron.
You cited him as a bogus authority on what it means to be atheist.
You didn't say what he meant by the word "God" so you were lying by
omission.
>> Why didn't you read the FAQ you were given before telling us again
>> just how ignorant, stupid and dishonest you are?
>
>I read it the last time you posted it in reply to the same quotes. I still
Then you are either lying or incapable of reading for comprehension.
Because you took no notice of what it actually said. Stop being so
dishonest.
>can't believe just how ignorant, stupid and self-deluded you are to think
>the "FAQ" in any way supports your claims that "God" doesn't exist.
What "claims that God doesn't exist" are you lying about, liar?
This is the real world outside your religion where you have yet to
demonstrate that it is anything more that one of hundreds of different
religious beliefs?
Do you even understand the differerence between this and your lie
about atheists that you made to atheists in an atheist newsgroup??
>> Read it this time and admit your "mistake".
>>
>> >> Keep reading this FAQ until it finally dawns on you that his out of
>> >> context quote doesn't mean what you morons imagine, let alone is the
>> >> "argument" from authority that proves nothing anyway:
So why didn't you?
panam...@hotmail.com
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:5s9d255j85g8ofugm...@4ax.com...> > >"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:e5sc25pipqol1iev9...@4ax.com...> > >> >"Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns9C1F302...@216.196.97.131...
It is no "claim" to say that something that hasn't been proven to
exist does not. Or should I say that nothing supports *your* claim
that the frisbee playing manatees of Mars do not exist?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
Exactly. It's the falsifiable default pending evidence. The standard
methodology for dealing with unsupported claims
The lying moron had this explained the last time she crashed the
group.
But she either can't be bothered to take any notice or has serious
reading comprehension difficulties.
But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
context or fabricated.
Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
of the universe.
In any case, the FAQ shows that he had no idea what an atheist is -
and the imbecile cites him as an authority in support of her straw
man.
Like all these Liars For God she thinks she knows what an atheist is
better than we do ourselves, and hasn't the common sense or courtesy
to grant that we might actually know what our own POV is. Or how nasty
it is to try and pick holes in our explanation let alone using nothing
more than fallacies.
They don't realise what it tells us about them, and it ain't
flattering.
pearl
I didn't get anything wrong. You're the moron here.
> >Stop making false accusations.
>
> Stop lying.
Stop making false accusations.
> >> Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
> >
> >Einstein was a scientist.
>
> What has that got to do with it, imbecile?
Try reading your "FAQ".
> >> And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
> >> "God".
> >
> >How so very presumptious of you to claim to know what I mean.
>
> Hardly,moron.
Totally, stupid.
> You cited him as a bogus authority on what it means to be atheist.
Eh?
> You didn't say what he meant by the word "God" so you were lying by
> omission.
'"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -
it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. "
(Albert Einstein)'
> >> Why didn't you read the FAQ you were given before telling us again
> >> just how ignorant, stupid and dishonest you are?
> >
> >I read it the last time you posted it in reply to the same quotes. I still
>
> Then you are either lying or incapable of reading for comprehension.
> Because you took no notice of what it actually said. Stop being so
> dishonest.
I'm an honest person and quite capable of reading for comprehension.
You're a train-wreck though apparently.
> >can't believe just how ignorant, stupid and self-deluded you are to think
> >the "FAQ" in any way supports your claims that "God" doesn't exist.
>
> What "claims that God doesn't exist" are you lying about, liar?
>
> This is the real world outside your religion where you have yet to
> demonstrate that it is anything more that one of hundreds of different
> religious beliefs?
>
> Do you even understand the differerence between this and your lie
> about atheists that you made to atheists in an atheist newsgroup??
Yes, completely off the rails.
pearl
..
> But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
> context or fabricated.
>
> Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
> was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
> an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
> of the universe.
'Religion and Science
The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
by Albert Einstein
..
Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from
its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality
of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to
those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the
centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a
vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength
to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic
religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has
said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific
workers are the only profoundly religious people.
You will hardly [find] one among the profounder sort of scientific minds
without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the
religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one
hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling
similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some
extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future,
to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is
nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling
takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law,
which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all
the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far
as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is
beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious
geniuses of all ages.
( Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel
Press, 1999, pp. 24-29. )
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/einstein_religion.html
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
For starters, you lied about atheists.
Then you used an out of context (at best) Einstein quoteas though he
was an expert of atheists, when he doesn't even use the word "God" to
mean what theists do.
So stop lying.
>> >Stop making false accusations.
>>
>> Stop lying.
>
>Stop making false accusations.
Stop lying and instead show that you aqctuially understand why
Einstein didn't support your misreprestation about atheists.
>> >> Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
>> >
>> >Einstein was a scientist.
>>
>> What has that got to do with it, imbecile?
>
>Try reading your "FAQ".
What the fuck has Einstein being a scientist got to do with atheism,
imbecile?
>> >> And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
>> >> "God".
>> >
>> >How so very presumptious of you to claim to know what I mean.
>>
>> Hardly,moron.
>
>Totally, stupid.
Hardly, liar.
>> You cited him as a bogus authority on what it means to be atheist.
>
>Eh?
Which word didn't you understand?
>> You didn't say what he meant by the word "God" so you were lying by
>> omission.
>
>'"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
>manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -
>it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
>attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. "
>(Albert Einstein)'
"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their
conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional
endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any
considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of
religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is
rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling.
It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is
entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic
conception of God corresponding to it."
===> It takes an exceptional individual to rise beyond an
anthropomorphic concept of God.
===> Very difficult to elucidate the feeling of cosmic awe to anyone
who is entirely without it because there is no anthropomorphic
conception of God corresponding to it.
In short, his references to "Spinoza's God". He is in awe of
it.
Nowhere does he say he worships it. Which would be silly because
it's not a personal God.
And while we feel the same awe, it would never occur to us to
call it "God".
Did you miss this, especially the last sentence?
>> >> Why didn't you read the FAQ you were given before telling us again
>> >> just how ignorant, stupid and dishonest you are?
>> >
>> >I read it the last time you posted it in reply to the same quotes. I still
>>
>> Then you are either lying or incapable of reading for comprehension.
>> Because you took no notice of what it actually said. Stop being so
>> dishonest.
>
>I'm an honest person and quite capable of reading for comprehension.
Then why don't you? And why don't you address the points made?
>You're a train-wreck though apparently.
And you're still a liar.
>> >can't believe just how ignorant, stupid and self-deluded you are to think
>> >the "FAQ" in any way supports your claims that "God" doesn't exist.
>>
>> What "claims that God doesn't exist" are you lying about, liar?
Well, liar?
>> This is the real world outside your religion where you have yet to
>> demonstrate that it is anything more that one of hundreds of different
>> religious beliefs?
>>
>> Do you even understand the differerence between this and your lie
>> about atheists that you made to atheists in an atheist newsgroup??
>
>Yes, completely off the rails.
A liar as well as an idiot. Because no atheist makes any claim about
what you have yet to demonstrate in the real world outside your
religion.
You would have had to have demonstrated it first.
Was this clear enough even for you?
>> >> Read it this time and admit your "mistake".
>> >>
>> >> >> Keep reading this FAQ until it finally dawns on you that his out of
>> >> >> context quote doesn't mean what you morons imagine, let alone is the
>> >> >> "argument" from authority that proves nothing anyway:
>>
>> So why didn't you?
Well?
panam...@hotmail.com
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
> ..
>
> > But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
> > context or fabricated.
>
> > Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
> > was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
> > an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
> > of the universe.
>
> 'Religion and Science
> The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
> by Albert Einstein
snip
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Your complete inability to speak for yourself is noted.
And until theists can show measurable, repeatable evidence that gods
exist, it is *not* a claim to say they do not.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
> ..
>> But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
>> context or fabricated.
>>
>> Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
>> was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
>> an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
>> of the universe.
>
>'Religion and Science
>The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
>by Albert Einstein
>..
>Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from
>its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality
>of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to
>those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the
>centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a
>vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength
>to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic
>religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has
>said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific
>workers are the only profoundly religious people.
And he was wrong, because as I keep repeating, atheists have the same
sense of awe but do not treat it as religious.
>You will hardly [find] one among the profounder sort of scientific minds
>without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the
>religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one
>hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling
>similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some
>extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
And he was wrong. Because plenty of scientists don't see it in terms
of religion.
>But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future,
But not creator-type causation. And in any case he died long before
the current understanding of of both cosmology and quantum mechanics.
Although much of it was already known.
>to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is
>nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling
>takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law,
>which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all
>the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
>reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far
>as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is
>beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious
>geniuses of all ages.
>
>( Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel
Do you understand the difference between "as I see it" and "as it is",
imbecile?
>Press, 1999, pp. 24-29. )
Which bit supports you and contradicts his own words in the FAQ I gave
you, imbecile?
Christopher A. Lee
>On Jun 3, 1:49�pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
>> �..
>>
>> > But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
>> > context or fabricated.
>>
>> > Because he used the word �"God" in a completely unconventional way that
>> > was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
>> > an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
>> > of the universe.
>>
>> 'Religion and Science
>> The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
>> by Albert Einstein
>
>snip
Funny thing is, the quote more or less said what I just did. But it
mentioned God and religion. So she saw only the words she wanted to
and read her ownmeaning into it.
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>
>Your complete inability to speak for yourself is noted.
It's even worse. They expect their re-interpretation through their
perspective, to convince us in spite of what he actually says - over
and above the fallacy of the argument from authority.
As Russell said, "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears
into something hecan understand"
Her original "quote" was of Einstein saying what an atheist is and
getting it wrong.
He might have had an excuse because it was published at a time when
atheist was equated with communist. But she doesn't.
I wish he hadn't used religious language to get his personal views
across because stupid theists have misrepresented it ever since.
>And until theists can show measurable, repeatable evidence that gods
>exist, it is *not* a claim to say they do not.
Don't expect theists to understand this because it there is a mental
block that gets in the way even though they don't use that language
for ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot etc.
Robibnikoff
Christopher A. Lee
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>
>Fucking moron.
We know she's a moron but has she ever been laid?
Robibnikoff
I don't know and I don't care ;)
Syd
> Syd the forger is thicker than pigshit:
>
> > On Jun 3, 4:31 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> Uncle Vic wrote:
>
> >> > Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God".
>
> >> Yet you gave money for a Bus campaign to proclaim it!
>
> >> Talk about blind adherence to Dawkins worship!
>
> > And yet, your silence when Christers do the same thing is deafening.
>
> That would be for two very good reasons;
>
> 1. they are not advertising beliefs they claim not to have! B^D
>
> (you really are thicker than two short planks! B^) and
>
> 2. I wasn't paying for any of it! B^]
And how, dingdong, are you paying for the unbelievers?
I don't recall anyone spending tax dollars on this campaign.
Not that such little facts mean a damn thing to you.
>
> You and Uncle Zit are like too bookends made out
> the same material, common in alt.atheism.. Idiotonium! B^D
>
No.
The reason you complain about the atheist billboards is because you
have a hysterical, mind-numbing fear of unbelievers.
PDW
Syd
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:27:59 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
>
>
> >"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>
> >Fucking moron.
>
> We know she's a moron but has she ever been laid?
I hope not.
Someone that dumb doesn't need to be breeding.
PDW
dh
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <jaypee....@gmail.com> wrote
>> On 2 Jun., 18:34, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
>>> >God both
>>> >require an act of faith.
>>>
>>> True.
>>
>> So, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, right?
>>
>> No, why?
>>
>
>Because if "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, then atheism is a faith.
>And baldness is a hair color. And barefoot is a shoe style.
Your confusing strong atheism with weak atheism. There's no doubt
about that, so the only thing left in question is whether you're
ignorant and don't know the difference, or you really do but you're
being deliberately dishonest. Which do you want people to think it is?
dh
wrote:
>On 2 Jun., 18:34, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
>> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>> >require an act of faith.
>>
>> � � True.
>
>So, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby, right?
Not having a belief is weak atheism. Strong atheism requires
belief that God does not exist. How strong a person's faith is that
God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist a person
is or is not. Again, not having a belief is weak atheism.
dh
>> the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
>> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
>> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
>> are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
>> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge".
LOL!!! That idea is pretty funny. Thanks for re-posting :-)
>> That one is
>> especially funny considering the fact that if God does exist it's more
>> than likely some people have known/do know it, but there's no way
>> anyone could possibly know that God does not exist whether he actually
>> does exist or not.
dh
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, dh@. wrote:
>
>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
>>>God both require an act of faith.
>>
>> True.
>
>False. Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God".
Strong atheists do. Those with no belief are not strong atheists.
>We simply
>don't believe the claims of the religious.
If you have no faith God does not exist, you are not a strong
atheist. You may be a weak one, or an agnostic, but you are not a
strong atheist.
>Of course, this is impossible
>for you morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact that your god
>is nothing but a belief.
That's one possiblity. If you have faith in it you are strong
atheist. If you have no faith in it you are not a strong atheist.
>In fact, you idiots are perfectly willing to go
>so far as to redefine the term "belief" to mean something within the
>realm of reality.
>
>It's not. Check out that monitor you're staring at. Do you believe it
>is there? I don't. I KNOW it is there. Big difference. Now try to
>apply that to your god.
The facts that humans have accomplished as much as they have in
the period of time we have developed, every star system we are
familiar with has intelligent life at least to our level, and there
are many billions of other star systems it certainly seems most likely
some beings have developed to the point that they can be considered
gods. Whether or not any of them have anything to do with this planet
if they exist, is less certain.
dh
<1...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
>On Jun 2, 5:34�pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
>> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>> >require an act of faith.
>>
>> � � True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
>> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
>> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
>> are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
>> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge". That one is
>> especially funny considering the fact that if God does exist it's more
>> than likely some people have known/do know it, but there's no way
>> anyone could possibly know that God does not exist whether he actually
>> does exist or not.
>>
>> >"Faith" is not limited to religious types, but
>> >that's what it generally refers to.
>>
>> � � Faith is the degree of confidence a being has that something it
>> believes to be true is correct. The degree of faith--or confidence--a
>> person has that God does not exist, is what determines how strong an
>> atheist the person is or is not. If a person has no faith, then they
>> are not a strong atheist.
>
>Pillock.
>
>Faith is taking something on trust without a shred of evidence,
LOL!!!!!!! It is not. You have faith that there will be enough
oxygen to support you when you walk outside. Etc.
>and
>since faith is the only basis for believing in these weird, logically
>inconsistent god thingies, then atheism is the only honest approach to
>the question of their existence.
You can only be a strong atheist if you have faith God does not
exist.
>What it takes to be an atheist is intellectual honesty, and the moral
>courage to be intellectually honest in the face of stupidity,
If you claim to be a strong atheist but don't have faith that God
does not exist, you are lying.
>ignorance, absurd contortions of language and logic, and the hostility
>with which people defend those three things.
Again:
If you claim to be a strong atheist but don't have faith that God
does not exist, you are lying.
dh
<johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>>>require an act of faith.
>>
>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>
>Its not a matter of faith.
The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. If they
have no faith they could be a weak atheist or an agnostic, but not a
strong atheist.
>Given the fact that science has explained
>how nature really works
16. If God exists, it seems quite clear he makes use of the
evolutionary
method of creation.
>and given the fact that you people have
>provided NO EVIDENCE for the existence of god reduces the probablity
>of the existence of god to .00000001 %. Its safe to assume that the
>existence of god or anything supernatural is almost nil.
3. Nothing that happens is supernatural, so anything gods do
would be natural for them.
>No faith required.
The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. If they
have no faith they could be a weak atheist or an agnostic, but not a
strong atheist.
dh
<andr...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Jun 2, 12:34�pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
>> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>> >require an act of faith.
>>
>> � � True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
>> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
>> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
>> are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
>> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge".
>
>Really?
Really.
>Name one.
I don't remember specifically, but they tried to say that
impericism somehow allowed people to develop the "knowledge" required
to determine that God does not exist.
>Because ime, strong atheists are by far the
>minority.
So far I can only conclude that a lot of weak atheists and even
some agnostics feel they want to claim to be strong atheists, even
though they don't have the faith required in order to be one. It is
pathetic, but that's why I'm drawing attention to it.
dh
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting point. I would say that the tendency to be supremely
>> confident in one's beliefs is a character trait that transcends theism
>> or athesim. As you say, a lot of theists are very sure of their
>> beliefs, but many are just kind of hedging their bets.
>
>How can someone be "very sure of their beliefs" and fail to realize that
>their beliefs are nothing but beliefs?
If you disbelieve in God you would be the perfect person to try to
explain that. People have reasons to believe God does exist. The fact
that we can even discuss it is one reason, and the fact that we can
discuss it with people all over the world simply by tapping our
fingers is another. If you can't recognise such things as evidence,
and disbelieve in God's existence even though there is no way a person
could learn he does not exist even if he doesn't, you would be a
perfect person to explain why you put faith in something that is
nothing but your particular belief.
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God
>>>both
>>>require an act of faith.
>>
>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
>> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
>> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
>> are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
>> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge". That one is
>> especially funny considering the fact that if God does exist it's more
>> than likely some people have known/do know it, but there's no way
>> anyone could possibly know that God does not exist whether he actually
>> does exist or not.
>
>This kind of discussion is meaningless unless you strictly define what you
>mean by "God".
You go first for a change.
>>>"Faith" is not limited to religious types, but
>>>that's what it generally refers to.
>>
>> Faith is the degree of confidence a being has that something it
>> believes to be true is correct. The degree of faith--or confidence--a
>> person has that God does not exist, is what determines how strong an
>> atheist the person is or is not. If a person has no faith, then they
>> are not a strong atheist.
>
>It is my experience that true skeptics hedge their bets, they deiberately
>avoid drawing absolute conclusions.
Then they shouldn't try to claim to be something that requires
more faith than they have.
>Everything is degrees of probability.
>
>If someone tells me they believe in God, my response is, "That's nice, what
>does that mean?"
The idea sounds good. We sure have differing ideas on what he
might be like, but at least we both agree God could possibly
exist....I guess?
Andres64
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:49:56 -0700 (PDT), Andres64
>
> >On Jun 2, 12:34 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >I simply said that an absolute belief in
> >> >the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
> >> >require an act of faith.
>
> >> True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
> >> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
> >> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
> >> are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
> >> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge".
>
> >Really?
>
> Really.
>
> >Name one.
>
> I don't remember specifically, but they tried to say that
> impericism somehow allowed people to develop the "knowledge" required
> to determine that God does not exist.
So you have a cite for this?
> >Because ime, strong atheists are by far the
> >minority.
>
> So far I can only conclude that a lot of weak atheists and even
> some agnostics feel they want to claim to be strong atheists, even
> though they don't have the faith required in order to be one. It is
> pathetic, but that's why I'm drawing attention to it.
How is someone conceding that they lack enough faith to absolutely
deny something "pathetic"?
Christopher A. Lee
Because he has no idea what an atheist is. and cannot understand that
people outside his religion can't be described according to
presumptions that only apply inside it.
Sanity's Little Helper
Like I said: Contortions of language and logic.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
if a tree falls in the woods, what are the odds it will land in some bear
shit ?
Not authentic without this signature.
Bill M
them to go to after they die!
"Syd" <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fab5dc2d-308d-4a89...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Uncle Vic
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:20:37 -0500, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>One fine day in alt.atheism, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting point. I would say that the tendency to be supremely
>>> confident in one's beliefs is a character trait that transcends
>>> theism or athesim. As you say, a lot of theists are very sure of
>>> their beliefs, but many are just kind of hedging their bets.
>>
>>How can someone be "very sure of their beliefs" and fail to realize
>>that their beliefs are nothing but beliefs?
>
> If you disbelieve in God you would be the perfect person to try to
> explain that.
Oh, I know the answer. I was waiting for you to answer it honestly.
> People have reasons to believe God does exist. The fact
> that we can even discuss it is one reason, and the fact that we can
> discuss it with people all over the world simply by tapping our
> fingers is another.
Do try to make sense here. What are your reasons to believe "God"
exists? Why don't you just *know* god exists? It's because your
knowledge of "god" is based on hearsay, and your belief in the critter is
based on fear of death. You're pitiful.
> If you can't recognise such things as evidence,
Dude. Hearsay. There is no evidence. If there was, belief would not be
necessary.
> and disbelieve in God's existence even though there is no way a person
> could learn he does not exist even if he doesn't, you would be a
> perfect person to explain why you put faith in something that is
> nothing but your particular belief.
>
You are arguing in full reverse.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
Uncle Vic
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C1F302...@216.196.97.131...
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>> >>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
>> >>God both require an act of faith.
>> >
>> > True.
>>
>> False. Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God". We
>> simply don't believe the claims of the religious. Of course, this is
>> impossible for you morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact
>> that your god is nothing but a belief.
>
> '"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited
> human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there
> is no God. [..]" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University
> Press, p. 214) ..'
> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
>
>> In fact, you idiots are perfectly willing to go
>> so far as to redefine the term "belief" to mean something within the
>> realm of reality.
>
> '"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of
> the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant
> beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the
> truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a
> deeply religious man. " (Albert Einstein)
> .. /
> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
>
>> It's not. Check out that monitor you're staring at. Do you believe
>> it is there? I don't. I KNOW it is there. Big difference. Now try
>> to apply that to your god.
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/test3.html . That occured trying out a
> nice graphics programme called "Ultimate FX", just putting the
> Windows clouds screen image through a few simple filters. Could you
> explain?
>
>
>
>
"Quote mining is not an argument"
[Uncle Vic - 6/3/09]
fasgnadh
>
> It seriously frightens them when they realize there may not be a Heaven for
> them to go to after they die!
B^D
Atheist 'arguments' are all about ignoring and distracting from
the FACTS, see below, whit some idiotic projection, see above. B^)
> "Syd" <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fab5dc2d-308d-4a89...@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 3, 11:38 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Syd the forger is thicker than pigshit:
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 4:31 am, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Uncle Vic wrote and then RAN AWAY AND HID:
>>>>>
>>>>> Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God".
>>>>
>>>> Yet you gave money for a Bus campaign to proclaim it!
>>>> Talk about blind adherence to Dawkins worship!
Note how the atheists don't even try to deny it! B^D
they whipped the hat around, even got dawkins to fund it out of the
Cult's takings, to ADVERTISE their **BELIEFS**.. the one's liars
like Uncle Vic pretend they don't have!! But which Richo claims
are part of atheist RELIGION! BVWAAAAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!
>>> And yet, your silence when Christers do the same thing is deafening.
>>
>> That would be for two very good reasons;
>>
>> 1. they are not advertising beliefs they claim not to have! B^D
>>
i.e. The Christians are NOT 'doing the same thing'! B^D
Atheists are such illogical, confused, intellectually challenged
DIMWITS! B^]
>> (you really are thicker than two short planks! B^) and
Notice how they don't argue with that either! B^D
Truth wins out!
So long as they accept that the difference is that atheists
are paying for, and advertising BELIEFS they CLAIM NOT TO HAVE,
I don't care how stupid their misunderstandings and illogic
in the rest of their respons is.. they have conceded the argument! B^)
>> 2. I wasn't paying for any of it! B^]
>
> And how, dingdong, are you paying for the unbelievers?
I didn't say I was, fuckwit. B^) You are a cretin who can't understand
plain English.
Which part of "I WASN'T paying for ANY of it" do you not understand,
you poor babbling imbecile?
> I don't recall anyone spending tax dollars on this campaign.
WTF does that have to do with anything? B^D
You morons asked why I said nothing about Christians advertising
their SINCERE beliefs and I told you.. THEY aren't being
hypocrites like you atheists are when you advertise beliefs which
you CLAIM NOT TO HAVE!!!
And the other reason I don't give a shit what they do with their money
is .. it's NOT ME PAYING!!! B^D
Is that REALLY so fucking hard for your knuckle dragging trogs to
understand that I have to EXPLAIN IT To YOU S-L-O-W-L-Y!? B^D
Why don't all hire an ADULT to do your posting for you!!! B^D
> Not that such little facts mean a damn thing to you.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAA
What 'little facts'?? *I* said NOTHING about taxpayers,
you brain dead, semi-literate, stupid atheist fuck!!!!!
I am quite happy for you all to spend your hard earned
money from sucking dicks and selling your arse, on bus ads
that provided so much laughter and ridicule at your expense,
and divided the atheists over the issue of PUTTING YOUR BELIEFS
OUT THERE, whn half of you claim you HAVE NONE!!!
Priceless.. now you are the authors of a PUBLICLY
PROCLAIMED **IDEOLOGY* and it's full of logical inconsistancy,
and HAS NO PROOF!!!
Just like you whine about in relation to the beliefs of OTHERS!!
It was a fabulously STUPID tactic.. and i will be reminding you
of how it BLEW UP.. for many years to come! B^
But don't cry, your fuck up is small beer compared to your
more important predecessors in the USSR, Maoist China,
Pol Pots year Zero and Nth Korea.. their massive cluster
fucks are LEGENDARY, and the stink will hang over atheism
for CENTURIES!
People in 2809 will be still talking about it, just like
you feeble hypocrites are whining about the Crusades! B^D
>> You and Uncle Zit are like too bookends made out
>> the same material, common in alt.atheism.. Idiotonium! B^D
>
So what motivates you idiots to post such shite?
>
> hysterical, mind-numbing fear.
it shows. B^)
--
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
pearl
"people who say there is no God."? Do you not say there is no God?
> Then you used an out of context (at best) Einstein quoteas though he
> was an expert of atheists, when he doesn't even use the word "God" to
> mean what theists do.
Whether he was an expert on atheists or not is entirely beside the point
I was addressing ("the fact that your god is nothing but a belief"). If by
"your god" you're referring to a particular entity as generally described
in the *corrupt* bloody Abrahamic faiths (including s-c "Christianity"),
then you'll not get much argument from me about that. But what about
the use of the word "God" as Einstein meant it? Do you deny that too?
> So stop lying.
I'm not. You lied saying Einstein's God "wasn't even an intelligence".
> >> >Stop making false accusations.
> >>
> >> Stop lying.
> >
> >Stop making false accusations.
>
> Stop lying and instead show that you aqctuially understand why
> Einstein didn't support your misreprestation about atheists.
See above.
> >> >> Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
> >> >
> >> >Einstein was a scientist.
> >>
> >> What has that got to do with it, imbecile?
> >
> >Try reading your "FAQ".
>
> What the fuck has Einstein being a scientist got to do with atheism,
> imbecile?
Atheism? You tell me.
> >> >> And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
> >> >> "God".
> >> >
> >> >How so very presumptious of you to claim to know what I mean.
> >>
> >> Hardly,moron.
> >
> >Totally, stupid.
>
> Hardly, liar.
Totally, stupid liar.
> >> You cited him as a bogus authority on what it means to be atheist.
> >
> >Eh?
>
> Which word didn't you understand?
It the entire claim that I don't get. I cited him as a credible scientist.
> >> You didn't say what he meant by the word "God" so you were lying by
> >> omission.
> >
> >'"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
> >manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -
> >it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
> >attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. "
> >(Albert Einstein)'
>
> "Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their
> conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional
> endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any
> considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of
> religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is
> rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling.
> It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is
> entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic
> conception of God corresponding to it."
So your problem is really with how people perceive God, rather than God's
existence in whatever form or formlessness? Is that what Atheism's about?
..
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What a fucking moron.
Why can't you read for comprehension, imbecile?
What are the linguistic presumptions behind your loaded question,
moron?
What you yopu think the word "God" means outside your religion?
Neither of these questions should be hard to answer.
Especially when it has been repeatedly explained that it is merely
somebody else;s religious belief.
>> Then you used an out of context (at best) Einstein quoteas though he
>> was an expert of atheists, when he doesn't even use the word "God" to
>> mean what theists do.
>
>Whether he was an expert on atheists or not is entirely beside the point
>I was addressing ("the fact that your god is nothing but a belief"). If by
That's all it is until you demonstrate otherwise, imbecile.
ANd you've answered your own stupid question.
>"your god" you're referring to a particular entity as generally described
>in the *corrupt* bloody Abrahamic faiths (including s-c "Christianity"),
>then you'll not get much argument from me about that. But what about
>the use of the word "God" as Einstein meant it? Do you deny that too?
What a fucking moron.
Can't you read?
>> So stop lying.
>
>I'm not. You lied saying Einstein's God "wasn't even an intelligence".
You're lying again, because it wasn't.
>> >> >Stop making false accusations.
>> >>
>> >> Stop lying.
>> >
>> >Stop making false accusations.
>>
>> Stop lying and instead show that you aqctuially understand why
>> Einstein didn't support your misreprestation about atheists.
>
>See above.
See above, lying moron.
>> >> >> Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
>> >> >
>> >> >Einstein was a scientist.
>> >>
>> >> What has that got to do with it, imbecile?
>> >
>> >Try reading your "FAQ".
>>
>> What the fuck has Einstein being a scientist got to do with atheism,
>> imbecile?
>
>Atheism? You tell me.
You're the one who brought it up. imbecile.
>> >> >> And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
>> >> >> "God".
>> >> >
>> >> >How so very presumptious of you to claim to know what I mean.
>> >>
>> >> Hardly,moron.
>> >
>> >Totally, stupid.
>>
>> Hardly, liar.
>
>Totally, stupid liar.
The only liar here is yourself. Who ignores everything she is told to
repeat her originallies.
>> >> You cited him as a bogus authority on what it means to be atheist.
>> >
>> >Eh?
>>
>> Which word didn't you understand?
>
>It the entire claim that I don't get. I cited him as a credible scientist.
You cited hima s an authority on atheism,liar. Which is nothing to do
with whether or not he was a scientist.
Are yoyu really,honestly this stupid?
>> >> You didn't say what he meant by the word "God" so you were lying by
>> >> omission.
>> >
>> >'"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
>> >manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -
>> >it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
>> >attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. "
>> >(Albert Einstein)'
>>
>> "Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their
>> conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional
>> endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any
>> considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of
>> religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is
>> rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling.
>> It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is
>> entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic
>> conception of God corresponding to it."
>
>So your problem is really with how people perceive God, rather than God's
>existence in whatever form or formlessness? Is that what Atheism's about?
Don't be so fucking stupid.
pearl
On Jun 3, 1:49 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
> ..
>
> > But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
> > context or fabricated.
> >
> > Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
> > was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
> > an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
> > of the universe.
>
> 'Religion and Science
> The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
> by Albert Einstein
------
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate
authority on the subject. "
--------
On what subject are you saying that Einstein wasn't a legitimate authority?
> Your complete inability to speak for yourself is noted.
Your resorting to unwarranted personal attack is noted.
> And until theists can show measurable, repeatable evidence that gods
> exist, it is *not* a claim to say they do not.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Therefore, even without
evidence (ignoring the universe, natural laws, life, etc. etc.) it /is/ a claim.
pearl
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:49:22 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie>
> wrote:
>
> >"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
> > ..
> >> But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
> >> context or fabricated.
> >>
> >> Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
> >> was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
> >> an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
> >> of the universe.
> >
> >'Religion and Science
> >The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
> >by Albert Einstein
> >Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from
> >its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality
> >of the men who, surrounded by a sceptical world, have shown the way to
> >those like-minded with themselves, scattered through the earth and the
> >centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a
> >vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength
> >to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic
> >religious feeling that gives a man strength of this sort. A contemporary has
> >said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific
> >workers are the only profoundly religious people.
>
> And he was wrong, because as I keep repeating, atheists have the same
> sense of awe but do not treat it as religious.
So you're equating "cosmic religious feeling" with your "sense of awe"?
> >You will hardly [find] one among the profounder sort of scientific minds
> >without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the
> >religion of the naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care one
> >hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling
> >similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some
> >extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
>
> And he was wrong. Because plenty of scientists don't see it in terms
> of religion.
But have the same sense of awe (cosmic religious feeling), like you do?
> >But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future,
>
> But not creator-type causation. And in any case he died long before
> the current understanding of of both cosmology and quantum mechanics.
> Although much of it was already known.
What type of causation then? What does current understanding tell us?
> >to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is
> >nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling
> >takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law,
> >which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all
> >the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant
> >reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far
> >as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is
> >beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious
> >geniuses of all ages.
> >
> >( Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel
>
> Do you understand the difference between "as I see it" and "as it is",
> imbecile?
Baby threw its rattle out of the pram again. Being exposed as a liar did it.
> >Press, 1999, pp. 24-29. )
>
> Which bit supports you and contradicts his own words in the FAQ I gave
> you, imbecile?
What bit doesn't support me and contradicts your "faq", degenerate lowlife?
> >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/einstein_religion.html
>
pearl
You don't believe in a "God" a described in the Bible, that's clear.
Otherwise?
> >> Then you used an out of context (at best) Einstein quoteas though he
> >> was an expert of atheists, when he doesn't even use the word "God" to
> >> mean what theists do.
> >
> >Whether he was an expert on atheists or not is entirely beside the point
> >I was addressing ("the fact that your god is nothing but a belief"). If by
>
> That's all it is until you demonstrate otherwise, imbecile.
What's "it"?
> ANd you've answered your own stupid question.
>
> >"your god" you're referring to a particular entity as generally described
> >in the *corrupt* bloody Abrahamic faiths (including s-c "Christianity"),
> >then you'll not get much argument from me about that. But what about
> >the use of the word "God" as Einstein meant it? Do you deny that too?
>
> What a fucking moron.
>
> Can't you read?
Answer the question.
> >> So stop lying.
> >
> >I'm not. You lied saying Einstein's God "wasn't even an intelligence".
>
> You're lying again, because it wasn't.
You're the liar.
> >> >> >Stop making false accusations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stop lying.
> >> >
> >> >Stop making false accusations.
> >>
> >> Stop lying and instead show that you aqctuially understand why
> >> Einstein didn't support your misreprestation about atheists.
> >
> >See above.
>
> See above, lying moron.
I'm waiting for you to explain.
> >> >> >> Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Einstein was a scientist.
> >> >>
> >> >> What has that got to do with it, imbecile?
> >> >
> >> >Try reading your "FAQ".
> >>
> >> What the fuck has Einstein being a scientist got to do with atheism,
> >> imbecile?
> >
> >Atheism? You tell me.
>
> You're the one who brought it up. imbecile.
What a pillock.
"Einstein wasn't an authority on what it means to be atheist."
> >> >> >> And he didn't mean anything remotely like you do when you use the word
> >> >> >> "God".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How so very presumptious of you to claim to know what I mean.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hardly,moron.
> >> >
> >> >Totally, stupid.
> >>
> >> Hardly, liar.
> >
> >Totally, stupid liar.
>
> The only liar here is yourself. Who ignores everything she is told to
> repeat her originallies.
You're the one going round and round with your head up your own ass.
> >> >> You cited him as a bogus authority on what it means to be atheist.
> >> >
> >> >Eh?
> >>
> >> Which word didn't you understand?
> >
> >It the entire claim that I don't get. I cited him as a credible scientist.
>
> You cited hima s an authority on atheism,liar. Which is nothing to do
> with whether or not he was a scientist.
No I didn't.
> Are yoyu really,honestly this stupid?
That's a question you need to answer.
> >> >> You didn't say what he meant by the word "God" so you were lying by
> >> >> omission.
> >> >
> >> >'"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
> >> >manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty -
> >> >it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
> >> >attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. "
> >> >(Albert Einstein)'
> >>
> >> "Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their
> >> conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional
> >> endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any
> >> considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of
> >> religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is
> >> rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling.
> >> It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is
> >> entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic
> >> conception of God corresponding to it."
> >
> >So your problem is really with how people perceive God, rather than God's
> >existence in whatever form or formlessness? Is that what Atheism's about?
>
> Don't be so fucking stupid.
Waiting........
panam...@hotmail.com
> <panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:72345b2d-0094-4e8f...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jun 3, 1:49 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> > "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
> > ..
>
> > > But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
> > > context or fabricated.
>
> > > Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
> > > was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
> > > an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
> > > of the universe.
>
> > 'Religion and Science
> > The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
> > by Albert Einstein
>
> ------
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>
> "This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate
> authority on the subject. "
>
> --------
>
> On what subject are you saying that Einstein wasn't a legitimate authority?
I'm saying your appeal to an authority is a logical fallacy in the
first place, and is therefore irrelvevant.
> > Your complete inability to speak for yourself is noted.
>
> Your resorting to unwarranted personal attack is noted.
Unwarranted? You come into alt.atheism with all this "god" voodoo
hoodoo, fail (like hundreds of others) to show why *your* gods should
be treated with any more consideration than the millions of other
fairy tales humans tell, and expect to be treated as anything other
than an ignorant sheep?
> > And until theists can show measurable, repeatable evidence that gods
> > exist, it is *not* a claim to say they do not.
>
> Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Okay then, do you *deny* that there are manatees playing frisbee on
the surface of Mars right now? After all, "absence of evidence isn't
evidence of absence"..<chuckle>
> Therefore, even without
> evidence (ignoring the universe, natural laws, life, etc. etc.)
Your ignorance of the natural universe and its properties is not
evidence your gods exist.
> it /is/ a claim.
*You* are the one claiming something exists. It is not a "claim" to
say that I do not believe you.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
dh
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>What you yopu think the word "God" means outside your religion?
>
>Neither of these questions should be hard to answer.
>
>Especially when it has been repeatedly explained that it is merely
>somebody else;s religious belief.
Strong atheism is merely a religious belief as well and no better
than any other, as far as we know.
dh
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:19:56 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:fvsd25lmmml2ccba4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:59:34 -0500, AZ Nomad
>>> <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:45:42 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>irrelevant xposting removed
>>>>
>>>>>"John Locke" <johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>>>>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of
>>>>>>>>God
>>>>>>>>both
>>>>>>>>require an act of faith.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its not a matter of faith.
>>>>
>>>>>It is. At the very least you require faith in your powers of logic and
>>>>>perception, and in the science that provides information, and the media
>>>>>that
>>>>>edits and transmits it to you.
>>>>
>>>>Faith is believing without or despite evidence. There's evidence for
>>>>logic and
>>>>what we perceive. It isn't faith.
>>>
>>> He's just another in a long lone of people who have no idea what it
>>> means to be atheist, gets it wrong and refuses to be corrected.
>>
>>Feel free to describe what it means to you.
>
>We've told you, imbecile. In the analogies you dismissed.
Your supposed analogies apply to weak atheism and agnosticism, but
NOT to strong atheism. Why do you want people to think they do? WHY???
dh
>
>"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote
>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:45:42 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>irrelevant xposting removed
>>
>>>"John Locke" <johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God
>>>>>>both
>>>>>>require an act of faith.
>>>>>
>>>>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>>>>
>>>> Its not a matter of faith.
>>
>>>It is. At the very least you require faith in your powers of logic and
>>>perception, and in the science that provides information, and the media
>>>that
>>>edits and transmits it to you.
>>
>> Faith is believing without or despite evidence.
>
>What may be considered by some to be inadequate evidence others consider to
>be overwhelming.
>
> There's evidence for logic and
>> what we perceive. It isn't faith.
>
>The only evidence you have that your conclusions are logical and that your
>perceptions are accurate are your logic and perceptions.
I've pointed out to them that beings have faith in everything they
think they "know" even when they're wrong. I've also pointed out that
all we have and ever can have is our own interpretation of things,
even when we think we know something but we're wrong. It's pretty
obvious and basic, but I've known them to try to argue against it.
>Both of these
>capacities are subject to change, error and differences of opinion.
They are doing no more than putting their faith in a guess, but
they often want to pretend their guess is more than that even as they
try to deny their own faith in it. LOL...believe it or not some of
them do want to believe their guess is really somehow "knowledge".
Hilarious! Then they want to deny their faith that the supposed
"knowledge" is correct. It's like a cartoon or something.
>Note that even a theist believes that 1+1=2 and that a chair is a chair.
You're getting a bit over their heads now...well...now that we
mention it this whole issue appears to be over their heads so what
does it matter how far above them you go?
dh
>On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:19:31 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stan-O" <bnds...@aol.com> wrote
>>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:13:24 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Faith is believing without or despite evidence.
>>>>
>>>>What may be considered by some to be inadequate evidence others consider
>>>>to
>>>>be overwhelming.
>>>
>>> ...but hardly compelling.
>>
>>It can be.
>
>Only for the deluded and gullible...
Some find it compelling and others not so, but the most clueless
are people who can't recognise any evidence at all that God might
exist. They are necessarily in the group of most clueless people on
Earth. Are you a member of that group of most clueless people, and
proud of it?
dh
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:18:05 +0100, Sanity's Little Helper
><elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>
>>It is an ancient Dutch <n...@email.com>, and he posteth:
>>
>>> Why? More faith is exactly what they need if they are to draw more firm
>>> conclusions.
>>>>
>>
>>Will you please either stop murdering the English language, or fuck off and
>>die.
>
>It's a standard dishonest theist ploy that is almost Orwellian.
If you don't have faith that God doesn't exist, you are not a
strong atheist. If even "Dutch" can recognise the fact, then we know
you really are on the low end of the thinking pole if you can't
comprehend.
>Reduce a whole slew of different things to faith in order to eliminate
>the actual meanings.
You have faith that no rabbit has ever voluntarily obtained a
bunch of Easter candy and hidden it in millions of people's homes all
in the same night. You may even have faith no rabbit has done that
over a periods of weeks, or months. What's in question, and hilarious,
is why you want to deny having such faith.
>Insist that the word faith be used instead of the
>more accurate words and phrases.
� The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. Without
faith, a person can not be a strong atheist but instead could be a
weak atheist or an agnonstic. �
>That way he can pretend they are all
>the same and there is no way to communicate the differences.
_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27698&dict=CALD
faith (TRUST) Show phonetics
noun [U]
great trust or confidence in something or someone
���������������������������������������������������������
>They do this with believe, claim and a whole load of other words too.
>
>He's not interested in getting atheism right either because he
>dismissed the analogies with not collecting stamps, not watching
>baseball etc.
>
>Even though they accurately describe it.
They are similar to WEAK atheism and agnosticism. Faith is
required in order to be a strong atheist, disbelief is a belief, so
your supposed analogies aren't even similar.
Why do you want so very badly to pretend strong atheism is
something it's not, do you have any idea about that? Is it just so you
can pretend to be a strong atheist even though in reality you're a
weak one, or what?
dh
Since you don't like what the difference really is between strong
and weak atheism, what do YOU WANT people to believe the difference
is, do you have any clue at all about that?
dh
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:c9sd25ds7sdkm93dm...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:45:42 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>irrelevant xposting removed
>>>
>>>"John Locke" <johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God
>>>>>>both
>>>>>>require an act of faith.
>>>>>
>>>>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>>>>
>>>> Its not a matter of faith.
>>>
>>>It is. At the very least you require faith in your powers of logic and
>>>perception, and in the science that provides information, and the media
>>>that
>>>edits and transmits it to you.
>>
>> Why do you keep repeating this lie?
>
>What exactly are you referring to?
LOL!!! I told you these guys are hilarious Dutch. It seems almost
impossible, but some of these people are ashamed of their faith in
everything they have faith in. It's very funny, but in a most pathetic
way. And the question gets down to: Are they really too stupid and
ignorant to understand the truth, or are they dishonestly pretending
to be for some reason?
(if that sounds familiar it's because it's the same way with you and
the LotTP, but you can't see it in that case as we know too well...)
dh
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 16:07:48 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:c9sd25ds7sdkm93dm...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:45:42 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>irrelevant xposting removed
>>>>
>>>>"John Locke" <johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>>>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God
>>>>>>>both
>>>>>>>require an act of faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>>>>>
>>>>> Its not a matter of faith.
>>>>
>>>>It is. At the very least you require faith in your powers of logic and
>>>>perception, and in the science that provides information, and the media
>>>>that
>>>>edits and transmits it to you.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep repeating this lie?
>>
>>What exactly are you referring to?
>
>Lying that atheists have faith
You have faith that you won't bounce off the Earth and float away
out of the atmosphere. Only a fool would not have it, so why are you
ashamed to admit that you do?
>, idiot. What did you think? The topping
>on the pizza yesterday?
That would make more sense than trying to deny the obvious faith
required for a person to be a strong atheist, and trying to deny you
have any faith in anything is on a level of idiocy Dutch may not have
been aware some of you exist in. What you try to claim--whether you're
clueless enough to actually believe it or not--is so stupid and
ignorant that it's hard to believe people who can use the internet can
also be stupid and ignorant enough to believe what you claim to
believe.
>>> Do you honestly imagine we haven't been telling the truth about
>>> ourselves when we correct your "mistake"?
>
>Well?
You clearly act as if you're totally clueless about what the
difference between strong and weak atheism is. Whether you truly are
as incredibly clueless as you act like you are, or you're being
deliberately dishonest about it, is what's now in question. Of course
knowing that the distinction has been pointed out to you a number of
times in the past as well as already more than once in this particular
thread, I am encouraged to believe you're more dishonest than
clueless. The question still remains though:
WHY???
dh
>On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 14:45:42 -0700, Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>irrelevant xposting removed
>
>>"John Locke" <johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote
>>> On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God
>>>>>both
>>>>>require an act of faith.
>>>>
>>>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>>>
>>> Its not a matter of faith.
>
>>It is. At the very least you require faith in your powers of logic and
>>perception, and in the science that provides information, and the media that
>>edits and transmits it to you.
>
>Faith is believing
_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27698&dict=CALD
faith (TRUST) Show phonetics
noun [U]
great trust or confidence in something or someone
���������������������������������������������������������
>without or despite evidence.
That has nothing to do with it. Faith is the degree of confidence
a being has that it is correct about something, regardless of evidence
or anything else.
>There's evidence for logic and
>what we perceive. It isn't faith.
� The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
Sanity's Little Helper
> On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:24:08 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
You really should get that personality disorder checked out, because you
clearly believe that reality is a figment of your imagination, and that you
know more about everything than everybody else does.
I'm a strong atheist because I know, from my extensive exploration of
material facts, that the concept of God is something somebody made up, not
in order to explain any natural phenomena either, but to legitimise social
injustice, so "his" existence is not even moot, it is simply false, and no
amount of philosophical tomfoolery can justify even the most tentative
belief in "him".
The arguments you are using are fantasy get-out-of-jail-free cards invented
by people who want to convince others that they do believe in him, which
wouldn't be so much of a problem if people didn't fly planes into
buildings, try to smash the school science curriculum and kill doctors as a
result of doing so.
Sanity's Little Helper
What I don't like is being lied about.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Jun 4, 9:40�am, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>> <panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:72345b2d-0094-4e8f...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Jun 3, 1:49 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> > "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
>> > ..
>>
>> > > But either way, she mined the Einstein quote which is either out of
>> > > context or fabricated.
>>
>> > > Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
>> > > was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
>> > > an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
>> > > of the universe.
>>
>> > 'Religion and Science
>> > The following excerpt was published in The World as I See It (1999).
>> > by Albert Einstein
>>
>> ------
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>>
>> "This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate
>> authority on the subject. "
>>
>> --------
>>
>> On what subject are you saying that Einstein wasn't a legitimate authority?
>
>I'm saying your appeal to an authority is a logical fallacy in the
>first place, and is therefore irrelvevant.
The fucking moron introduced Einstein as an authority on atheism - and
then said he was a scientist. As though that had anything to do with
it.
>> > Your complete inability to speak for yourself is noted.
>>
>> Your resorting to unwarranted personal attack is noted.
>
>Unwarranted? You come into alt.atheism with all this "god" voodoo
>hoodoo, fail (like hundreds of others) to show why *your* gods should
>be treated with any more consideration than the millions of other
>fairy tales humans tell, and expect to be treated as anything other
>than an ignorant sheep?
And they wonder why they get treated as fucking morons.
>> > And until theists can show measurable, repeatable evidence that gods
>> > exist, it is *not* a claim to say they do not.
>>
>> Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
>
>Okay then, do you *deny* that there are manatees playing frisbee on
>the surface of Mars right now? After all, "absence of evidence isn't
>evidence of absence"..<chuckle>
The fucking moron probably thinks that's different.
But then it reduces things like falsifiable conclusion, no reason even
to give it a thought etc to "faith". Which it then pretends is the
same as the theists' faith.
But then it's a typically dishonest theist piece of shit.
>>�Therefore, even without
>> evidence (ignoring the universe, natural laws, life, etc. etc.)
>
>Your ignorance of the natural universe and its properties is not
>evidence your gods exist.
>
>> it /is/ a claim.
>
>*You* are the one claiming something exists. It is not a "claim" to
>say that I do not believe you.
The fucking moron thinks this is an equivalent but opposite claim.
Or pretends to think it is.
If it can even think.
Stan-O
>>>It can be.
>>
>>Only for the deluded and gullible...
>
> Some find it compelling and others not so, but the most clueless
>are people who can't recognise any evidence at all that God might
>exist. They are necessarily in the group of most clueless people on
>Earth. Are you a member of that group of most clueless people, and
>proud of it?
Jesus on a piece of toast? The Virgin Mary in the skid marks of your
underwear? Only the most clueless people would accept that as evidence
of a god, and they would most definitely be proud of it...
Yap
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:r0dd25p4vie5f4qfd...@4ax.com...> > >"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:51bd25p7a4u8a7s8n...@4ax.com...> > >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:5s9d255j85g8ofugm...@4ax.com...> > >> >> >"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:e5sc25pipqol1iev9...@4ax.com...> > >> >> >> >"Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns9C1F302...@216.196.97.131...
You did not show there was a god, much less an intelligent one.
Yap
> <panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:72345b2d-0094-4e8f...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
If this can be accepted, then can you return the million bucks you
owed me?
pearl
On Jun 4, 9:07 pm, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:r0dd25p4vie5f4qfd...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I'm not. You lied saying Einstein's God "wasn't even an intelligence".
>
>What lie?
>You did not show there was a god, much less an intelligent one.
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:65cd259hsan1cesmd...@4ax.com...
"Because he used the word "God" in a completely unconventional way that
was nothing like the way regular theists use it. Heck, it wasn't even
an intelligence let alone a creator - just a metaphor for the wonders
of the universe."
'.. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future,
to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing
divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the
form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an
intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is
the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping
himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin
to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.
( Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel
Press, 1999, pp. 24-29. )
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/einstein_religion.html
' Humanity, like all life, is the expression of Universal Intelligence.
We are the product of the Universal Will to evolve, through the medium of
living bodies. *Life* is conclusively *not* the result of purely random
mathematical probabilities. It is the result of *an intelligent universe that has
Intent, and which is self aware*. For this reason it is not reasonable to conclude
that we are the sole intelligent creation, in a universe that is itself everywhere
intelligent. Our existence and sophistication is testimony to universal order, and
purposeful action. It is no mere accident that human potentials for creative, wise
and purposeful action are vast. Even the single cell possesses an incredible
library of information encoded into its very structure. The scope of that
information will never be adequately encompassed by words, not even by many
volumes of the most advanced scientific texts. How much more this is true of
the human being we cannot even scientifically guess, with any real accuracy.
We must turn within to obtain kind depth of knowledge, and how to make best
use of it. The intelligent expression of Natural Law, that is everywhere for us to
observe, be it named God, Synchronicity, Consciousness, the Tao or Gaia, is
still, *That which Manifests* throughout Nature. When we return to Nature and
the natural, the principles of natural law will again become clear to society as a
whole. So will the best means for right living in general.
..
Science has begun exploring the unified principles of Nature in a
significant way, in the last 50 years. This is a trend set largely by Albert Einstein.
Einstein was very arguably a mystic as well as a scientist, who recognized the
need for science to concretize a unified model of existence. This model came
to be known as the unified field theory, whose name reflects the reality of a
contiguous and all-inclusive connectivity pervading the universe. Thus, "We are
One" has its scientific basis in fact. This model demonstrates the connectivity
of nations and neighbors via subatomic realms. It also speaks of the natural laws
of particle physics, which govern our Unity. The same natural fact is realized in
both meditation and prayer. The mystics of the East and the West, in the modern
age as well as the traditional shaman, have been realizing the truth of this
connectivity since before recorded history. Any genuine mystic or psychic will
attest to the truth which is (unity) consciousness. The connectivity of mind to
mind, and of mind to Nature/God, is as real and concrete as material existence.
It is available right now for anyone to experience by looking within.
Physics has recognized the fact that when matter is reduced to its
subatomic components, the apparent solidity of material existence is not "solid"
at all. The subatomic realm is organized into quanta, (or packets of Energy).
These form themselves into both particles and waves, sometimes acting as both
simultaneously. Subatomic waves and particles are extremely interactive with
one another. This is true even at great physical distances and relative locations.
Our own inner states create such outgoing waves and particles in the surrounding
unified field. Thoughts and emotions create impulses that travel outward into the
environment.
An impulse generated in one area of a given field of energy, effects all the
particles of that field, (and adjoining fields to some degree). Those in turn effect
more adjacent energy fields, and so forth. A crude analogy for these field effects,
is that of a stone thrown into a pond. The stone causes waves which eventually
render changes in the entire body of water. This is the nature of the
electromagnetic world in which we live. The fact that each of us is immersed in
an ocean of usually invisible energy, intent and awareness, (God) one that carries
all manner of impulses, is common knowledge. What is not common knowledge
is the extent to which such principles effect our daily lives, on a moment to
moment psychic basis. The human nervous system is like a psychic radio
transceiver, broadcasting our inner state to the world.
The human body/mind acts as a psychic stone, thrown into the pond of
our collective consciousness, (World Mind). With every thought and emotion
we create, waves of influence are sent out, which effect all other people
according to their qualities. Our inner states also effect the universe at large.
The fact that "We are One" is true given the fact that the composition of human
consciousness, is of the same "substance" which coordinates and composes
the universe in general.
Intent is in all things, even the atom, as is awareness and energy.
Consciousness, (God) is therefore in all things, and is causal to the material world.
Far reaching influences rendered by even the most minute of impulses, (emotions
and thoughts for instance) on the subatomic levels of existence, have been
described by what is termed the "butterfly effect" by certain circles of science.
This term makes reference to the connectivity and unending effects brought about
by each individual, within our planetary system. Our own states of consciousness
ranging from love to fear, and from lucidity to confusion, radiate outward to
influence everything from neighbors to nations. The small changes made in individual
consciousness can eventually result in enormous cumulative transformations in
society. These occur in a compounding, snowball-like fashion. Soon others are
thinking and feeling in the same way, forming a group mind of sorts. When enough
people think and feel in a given way, a critical mass- threshold is crossed, at which
time a new "fashion" or "fad" takes form. If we were to apply this natural principle
to spiritual focus as a species, our entire global civilization would be transformed.
We would enter into an enlightened age.
We can see examples of compounding subtle causes, in many areas of
scientific study. They can be observed in psychology, computer science, ecology,
meteorology, electronics, biology, human physiology, chemistry, physics,
astronomy, political science, in the transformation of ideas worldwide, the global
internet, etc. Yet nowhere is massive change through "subtle" cause more in
evidence, than in the case of human consciousness itself. Mass focus shapes
our society at all levels. The products of our consciousness literally determine
how our very lives and collective civilization will unfold, day to day.
..... '
http://www.eoni.com/~visionquest/library/godconsc.html
polymer
<various snippages>
Oh! Atlantis!
<Donovan, circa 1965>
One of those essays in which a unsubstantiated claims
keep popping up without announcing themselves.
pearl
> One of those essays in which a unsubstantiated claims
> keep popping up without announcing themselves.
Be specific...?
polymer
" It is the result of *an intelligent universe that has
Intent, and which is self aware*, "
"Humanity, like all life, is the expression of Universal Intelligence."
There are two or three per paragraph. Should I just repost the
whole thing?
chibiabos
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:57:34 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
> >>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God
> >>>both
> >>>require an act of faith.
> >>
> >> True. And the faith of the disbeliever is in no way superior to
> >> that of any other religious belief, though people who consider
> >> themselves to be strong atheists often want to pretend their beliefs
> >> are somehow superior to all others. Amusingly, I have known of strong
> >> atheists to try referring to their faith as "knowledge". That one is
> >> especially funny considering the fact that if God does exist it's more
> >> than likely some people have known/do know it, but there's no way
> >> anyone could possibly know that God does not exist whether he actually
> >> does exist or not.
> >
> >This kind of discussion is meaningless unless you strictly define what you
> >mean by "God".
>
> You go first for a change.
How about the Late Stone Age Middle Eastern variety?
Got any evidence for that one?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
pearl
' Physics has recognized the fact that when matter is reduced to its
subatomic components, the apparent solidity of material existence is not "solid"
at all. The subatomic realm is organized into quanta, (or packets of Energy).
These form themselves into both particles and waves, sometimes acting as both
simultaneously. Subatomic waves and particles are extremely interactive with
one another. This is true even at great physical distances and relative locations.'
Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness
http://consc.net/papers/facing.html .
Short excerpt:
'..it is often noted that physics characterizes its basic entities only /extrinsically/,
in terms of their relations to other entities, which are themselves characterized
extrinsically, and so on. The intrinsic nature of physical entities is left aside.
Some argue that no such intrinsic properties exist, but then one is left with a
world that is pure causal flux (a pure flow of information) with no properties
for the causation to relate. If one allows that intrinsic properties exist, a natural
speculation given the above is that the intrinsic properties of the physical - the
properties that causation ultimately relates - are themselves phenomenal
properties. We might say that phenomenal properties are the internal aspect of
information. This could answer a concern about the causal relevance of experience
- a natural worry, given a picture on which the physical domain is causally closed,
and on which experience is supplementary to the physical. The informational view
allows us to understand how experience might have a subtle kind of causal
relevance in virtue of its status as the intrinsic nature of the physical.'
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Why did you repeat this disnost bullshit instead of addressing points
in response to it last time?
Most non-believers feel the same sense of wonder and awe but don't
feel the need to call it God or religion.
And you never addressed theany of the Einstein and religionFAQ, let
alone acknowledged it.
polymer
> "polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:HpGdnQ6r6YHO6LfX...@earthlink.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:57:29 +0100, pearl wrote:
>>
>> > "polymer" <pol...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:qNidnXNf7Kl77LfX...@earthlink.com...
>> >
>> >> One of those essays in which a unsubstantiated claims keep popping
>> >> up without announcing themselves.
>> >
>> > Be specific...?
>>
>> " It is the result of *an intelligent universe that has Intent, and
>> which is self aware*, "
>>
>> "Humanity, like all life, is the expression of Universal Intelligence."
>>
>> There are two or three per paragraph. Should I just repost the whole
>> thing?
>
> ' Physics has recognized the fact that when matter is
> reduced to its subatomic components, the apparent solidity of material
> existence is not "solid" at all. The subatomic realm is organized into
> quanta, (or packets of Energy). These form themselves into both
> particles and waves, sometimes acting as both simultaneously. Subatomic
> waves and particles are extremely interactive with one another. This is
> true even at great physical distances and relative locations.'
Things operating on and influencing one-another is not sufficient
to claim that they have consciousness, or a common consciousness,
much less that the Universe is "intelligent"
or that there is "Universal intelligence."
Neither does anything in the paragraph below, which consists mostly of
even more unsubstantiated metaphysical vagueness and hand waving.
Consciousness is a rather vague term in itself,
not to be used for proving other things, most
particularly itself, which is circular.
pearl
The action and interaction of subatomic packets of energy are not random
or as a result of chance. Therefore there must be some intrinsic causation.
What do you propose as an alternative to explain apparent intelligent and
purposeful events underlying everything from subatomic energy upwards?
> Neither does anything in the paragraph below, which consists mostly of
> even more unsubstantiated metaphysical vagueness and hand waving.
>
> Consciousness is a rather vague term in itself,
> not to be used for proving other things, most
> particularly itself, which is circular.
You're just dilly-dallying here in an attempt to evade important questions.
pearl
The only "disnost bullshit" here's your false claims and attempted diversion.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>> Neither does anything in the paragraph below, which consists mostly of
>> even more unsubstantiated metaphysical vagueness and hand waving.
>>
>> Consciousness is a rather vague term in itself,
>> not to be used for proving other things, most
>> particularly itself, which is circular.
>
>You're just dilly-dallying here in an attempt to evade important questions.
You have no "important questions", liar.
Just stupid bullshit where you take no notice of the answers.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What "false claims" are you lying that I have been making?
And what "attempted diversion", liar?
pearl
You're a joke.
pearl
LOL!
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You're a thoroughly nasty, pig-ignorant, sociopathic moron who can't
think outside her religious beliefs and never stops lying about those
who don't share them.
Was that clear enough even for you?
pearl
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours etc on to
other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy and doing something
about it (learning about oneself can be painful), and to distract and divert
attention away from themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is
achieved through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their target is
actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
The Socialised Psychopath or Sociopath
http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/serial.htm
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
In other words you cannot justify your lies and were being
deliberately nasty yet again.
pearl
*EXACTLY* what you're doing. See other post.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
You described yourself to a tee.
Remember, you lied about atheists to atheists and when called on it,
cited Einstein as an "authority" on atheism.
Which he obviously wasn't.
Lies which you still haven't retracted.
And then said he was a scientist as though that had anything to do
with it.
You ignored and dismissed explanations that what he meant by "God" and
"religion" are so non-standard they're nothing like what you or any
other theist means by the word.
And that what he calls God is his awe for the wonders of the universe,
which everybody including atheists also feel - but have no reason to
call God.
Also that he called these feelings religious.
Which atheists don't need to either.
Yopu keep lying about atheists, and you dismiss explanations with
"LOL".
And you accuse ME of being a bully?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What "false claims" were you lying that I made?
And what "attempted diversion" were you lying about?
You're projecting again, serial liar.
pearl
Who do you think you're fooling exactly, besides yourself that is..?
> Remember, you lied about atheists to atheists and when called on it,
> cited Einstein as an "authority" on atheism.
>
> Which he obviously wasn't.
>
> Lies which you still haven't retracted.
What nonsense. My first post quoted Einstein, as a credible *scientist* -
'"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human
mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God.
[..]" (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)
- in response to the seemingly self-contradictory:
"Atheists don't believe in the non-existence of "God". We simply don't
believe the claims of the religious. Of course, this is impossible for you
morons to accept, since you cannot accept the fact that your god is
nothing but a belief."
I subsequently acknowledged a possible source of misunderstanding:
Whether he was an expert on atheists or not is entirely beside the point
I was addressing ("the fact that your god is nothing but a belief"). If by
"your god" you're referring to a particular entity as generally described
in the *corrupt* bloody Abrahamic faiths (including s-c "Christianity"),
then you'll not get much argument from me about that. But what about
the use of the word "God" as Einstein meant it? Do you deny that too?
To which we were treated with the following gem from you:
> What a fucking moron.
>
> Can't you read?
And I replied:
"Answer the question."
I'm still waiting.
> And then said he was a scientist as though that had anything to do
> with it.
This is hilarious considering the endless calls for scientific evidence.
> You ignored and dismissed explanations that what he meant by "God" and
> "religion" are so non-standard they're nothing like what you or any
> other theist means by the word.
I didn't ignore or dismiss anything.
> And that what he calls God is his awe for the wonders of the universe,
> which everybody including atheists also feel - but have no reason to
> call God.
"His (the scientist's) religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement
at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority
that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings
is an utterly insignificant reflection. "
Also the following, which you conveniently snipped in your first response:
'"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the
manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is
this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude;
in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. "
> Also that he called these feelings religious.
>
> Which atheists don't need to either.
>
> Yopu keep lying about atheists, and you dismiss explanations with
> "LOL".
I haven't lied at all. Nor have I evaded anything, unlike you.
> And you accuse ME of being a bully?
You're an abusive bully and a liar. Not accusation but the ugly truth.
pearl
It's all right above at the top of this post.
> And what "attempted diversion" were you lying about?
"Why did you repeat this disnost bullshit instead of addressing points
in response to it last time?
Most non-believers feel the same sense of wonder and awe but don't
feel the need to call it God or religion.
And you never addressed theany of the Einstein and religionFAQ, let
alone acknowledged it."
> You're projecting again, serial liar.
That's you.
Syd
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:i2dn25tt0cu2p5se7...@4ax.com...
You just proved his point.
PDW
Syd
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:s5dn25hp00l5aunvk...@4ax.com...> > >"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:6q1l25hk8sr2nm4k1...@4ax.com...> > >> >"Yap" <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:0b2eb5c1-7db0-42cc...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
No answer?
Typical.
PDW
dh
<elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>It is an ancient <dh@.>, and he posteth:
>
>> Since you don't like what the difference really is between strong
>> and weak atheism, what do YOU WANT people to believe the difference
>> is, do you have any clue at all about that?
>
>What I don't like is being lied about.
LOL!!! I pointed out the differenc between strong and weak atheism
and you apparently want desperately for it to be something it is not,
but even when I ask you to you can't explain what that is...LOL...
Seriously, try again, because I'm getting really curious what it is
you WANT people to believe. If not what it actually is as I pointed
out, what do you WANT people to believe the difference is?
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???????
dh
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 09:44:33 -0700, John Locke
><johnlo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:34:20 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:14:00 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I simply said that an absolute belief in
>>>>the existence of God and an absolute belief in the non-existence of God both
>>>>require an act of faith.
>>>
>>> True. And the faith of the disbeliever..
>>>
>>Its not a matter of faith. Given the fact that science has explained
>>how nature really works and given the fact that you people have
>>provided NO EVIDENCE for the existence of god reduces the probablity
>>of the existence of god to .00000001 %. Its safe to assume that the
>>existence of god or anything supernatural is almost nil. No faith
>>required.
>
>What message do these in-your-face nasty Liars For God imagine they
>tell about themselves when they keep repeating the same lies about us,
>to us and ignoring correction?
_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27698&dict=CALD
faith (TRUST) Show phonetics
noun [U]
great trust or confidence in something or someone
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who
accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism
refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
���������������������������������������������������������
� The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what
determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. Without
faith, a person can not be a strong atheist but instead could be a
weak atheist or an agnonstic. �
dh
wrote:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:20:37 -0500, Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>One fine day in alt.atheism, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting point. I would say that the tendency to be supremely
>>>> confident in one's beliefs is a character trait that transcends
>>>> theism or athesim. As you say, a lot of theists are very sure of
>>>> their beliefs, but many are just kind of hedging their bets.
>>>
>>>How can someone be "very sure of their beliefs" and fail to realize
>>>that their beliefs are nothing but beliefs?
>>
>> If you disbelieve in God you would be the perfect person to try to
>> explain that.
>
>Oh, I know the answer.
LOL. I mean: Go ahead and answer it then.
>I was waiting for you to answer it honestly.
Stop waiting. Go:
>> People have reasons to believe God does exist. The fact
>> that we can even discuss it is one reason, and the fact that we can
>> discuss it with people all over the world simply by tapping our
>> fingers is another.
>
>Do try to make sense here. What are your reasons to believe "God"
>exists? Why don't you just *know* god exists?
Because if he does he pretty clearly has things set up so we can't
"know" he exists until he decides he wants us to, if ever.
>It's because your
>knowledge of "god" is based on hearsay, and your belief in the critter is
>based on fear of death.
I don't have a belief, but I do consider the possibility of God's
existence. What will happen after we die is certainly a legitimate
consideration for beings to take into consideration if they have the
mental ability to consider such things.
>You're pitiful.
Your faith that he doesn't exist is based on fear of God, which is
probably one reason why you're ashamed to admit whatever faith you
actually have in the possibility that you've made the correct guess.
From my position that makes you even more pitiful.
>> If you can't recognise such things as evidence,
>
>Dude. Hearsay. There is no evidence.
You can't recognise any. Not one single bit of it. You yourself
are evidence, yet you have no idea how you are. How much more clueless
could a person get than that? Possibly not any, making you possibly
one of the most clueless people on the planet.
>If there was, belief would not be necessary.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
>> and disbelieve in God's existence even though there is no way a person
>> could learn he does not exist even if he doesn't, you would be a
>> perfect person to explain why you put faith in something that is
>> nothing but your particular belief.
>
>You are arguing in full reverse.
The person criticizing the faith of theists appears to disbelieve
in God. Since there is no evidence to show that God does not exist,
putting faith in that being the correct possibility is the same thing
he was criticizing theists for doing. He just can't see it in his own
case, even though he can when it's people with a conflicting belief.
flower of romance
<dh@.> wrote in message news:qi3g25hf9lupbo1j5...@4ax.com...
>>> You can only be a strong atheist if you have faith God does not
>>> exist.
Nope. To be an athiest you don't beleive in any diety.
Dutch
You got all the i's and e's mixed up.
dh
The question is: Are you really so stupid and ignorant that you
can't comprehend the difference between strong and weak atheism, or
are you dishonestly pretending to be that stupid and ignorant even
though you're not? The of course if you're dishonestly pretending to
be that stupid and ignorant: WHY?
flower of romance
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:h0nc6i$jmb$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
Artistic license. :)
flower of romance
<dh@.> wrote in message news:dcnv25tieaufk29ik...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:51:51 +0100, "flower of romance"
> <whoc...@me.net> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:qi3g25hf9lupbo1j5...@4ax.com...
>>>>> You can only be a strong atheist if you have faith God does not
>>>>> exist.
>>
>>Nope. To be an athiest you don't beleive in any diety.
>
> The question is: Are you really so stupid