Those amusing atheists
dh
quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
more than one, if any.
A.
Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
of what appears to be a very unique type since I
openly consider the possibility that a creator does
exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
B.
Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
more amusing things I learned is that people who
ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
C.
Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
Weak atheists such as myself must consider
the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
of a creator, are fooling themselves.
There are a good number of people who give
every indication that they are strong atheists
except for one: That they deny it. Why? It's part
of the amusement, but it's also pathetic. Recently
we've seen from other threads that none of the
supposed atheists in several ngs are willing to admit
their faith. So what to think? They ridicule others
for considering the possibility of a creator, yet they
are also unwilling to admit their own faith that a
creator does not exist. It goes beyond that to the
point that such people are ashamed to admit their
faith in anything. That has been tested in several
ngs, and found to be true. Not only are strong
atheists ashamed of their own faith, but amusingly
it seems that some of them even consider themselves
to "free thinkers". It is hilarious that people who have
taken their mental refuge in that one extremely limiting
possibility, also consider themselves to be free thinkers!
Paul Hands
It's very simple : atheists are right; religionists are wrong.
John Locke
> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
>I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>more than one, if any.
>
You are an atheist or you are not. There are no
classifications. Period.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
jcon
> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
> quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
> more than one, if any.
>
> A.
> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>
That sort of person is generally considered an
"agnostic", rather than an atheist.
> B.
> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
> more amusing things I learned is that people who
> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
> in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>
If they are not willing to admit it, then how
do you know? Did you read their diaries?
Personally, I don't know of any atheist
who are ashamed to admit it.
> C.
> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>
Christopher Hitchens
Daniel Dennett
Richard Dawkins
Penn and Teller
James Randi
Isaac Asimov
Dave Barry
Richard Branson
me
...and hundreds more.
-jc
JohnN
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Definitions B and C, there is no atheist faith involved.
JohnN
Lee
<dh@.> wrote in message news:jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com...
What catagory is it when you ROFL at silly buggers dressed in daft hats,
gowns or other items of fancy dress saying magic spells to thin air hoping
it will answer them back?
Then to add to the merryment they argue endlessly about whose bit of thin
air is real and look down on people that see thin air as nothing more than a
mixture of gases.
_ Prof. Jonez _
... that you're a stammering imbecile.
Now do tell us the difference between a weak virgin and a strong virgin,
and which category the "virgin" Mary falls into, eh numbnuts?
Geoff
> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
> quite amusing.
As wew see, you are easily amused.
> There are several types of atheists.
> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
> more than one, if any.
>
> A.
> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
Bullshit. You are a believer.
> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>
> B.
> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith
Confirmed. I have no faith to be ashamed of. Only a theist would say
something so stupid.
> one of the
> more amusing things I learned is that people who
> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
> in that being the correct possibility.
I have no problem considering it a possibility any more than I have a
problem believing it is possible that a beautiful alien female will take me
away and bang the bejesus out of me. Neither are likely so I don't even
consider them.
> I feel that I've
> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
Consider us introduced.
> Weak atheists such as myself must consider
> the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
> that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
> to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
> as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
> a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
> to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
> of a creator, are fooling themselves.
Ergo...you are not an atheist.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
Fine. Meet another.
Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
concepts.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
Elf's latest stories are available in paperback! Buy
the genderbending novel _Sterlings_, available
now from http://stores.lulu.com/elfsternberg
Christopher A. Lee
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>dh@. writes:
>
>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>
> Fine. Meet another.
>
> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>concepts.
Only if you even see a deity-belief called "God" differently than
Zeus, Odin and all the others.
For those who don't, it's a cultural phenomenon. A religious belief.
Not something that has any meaning beyond that.
> Elf
Elf M. Sternberg
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:25:31 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>dh@. writes:
>>
>>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>
>> Fine. Meet another.
>>
>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>>Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>>automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>>historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>>concepts.
> Only if you even see a deity-belief called "God" differently than
> Zeus, Odin and all the others.
I'm not parsing your argument. Are you claiming that the Zeus
and Odin concepts aren't rife with moral, evidentiary, and historical
contradictions?
Mark K. Bilbo
jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com, dh@. wrote:
> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
> quite amusing.<snip>
Oh my.
Do the words "arrogant prick" mean anything to you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“The worst government is often the most moral.
One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane.
But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”
- H. L. Mencken
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:m2olb5-...@75-104-203-76.cust.wildblue.net...
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:59:05 -1100 in
> jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com, dh@. wrote:
>
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>> quite amusing.<snip>
>
> Oh my.
>
> Do the words "arrogant prick" mean anything to you?
They should. They describe what he is as well as what he doesn't have.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Christopher A. Lee
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:25:31 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
>> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. writes:
>>>
>>>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>>>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>>>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>>>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>>
>>> Fine. Meet another.
>>>
>>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>>>Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>>>automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>>>historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>>>concepts.
>
>> Only if you even see a deity-belief called "God" differently than
>> Zeus, Odin and all the others.
>
> I'm not parsing your argument. Are you claiming that the Zeus
>and Odin concepts aren't rife with moral, evidentiary, and historical
>contradictions?
Sigh.
A deity-belief called "God" is only different from all the others to
its followers.
Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
If you're not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called "God"
is.
It's not something that could or could not exist.
Any more than the Starship Enterprise is.
Or any of the characters in your stories.
> Elf
chibiabos
> C.
> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith
You got me, cocksucker.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Whatsanike
> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
> quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
> more than one, if any.
This is a mathematically very strange statement. It boggles the mind
just to consider "more than one, if any".
>
> A.
> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>
Wait, you encountered an atheist like this? Or this is you, and if so
did "more than one, if any" mean that you only encountered yourself?
> B.
> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
> more amusing things I learned is that people who
> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
> in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>
Ashamed of what faith? I thought Atheists didn't have a faith or if so,
faith in what?
> C.
> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
(See previous comment.) By the way, I now see that A, B, and C total 3
items. Now I am really confused about your first sentence, in addition
to your second sentence. At least you have formed actual sentences. That
could be a plus..
>
> Weak atheists such as myself must consider
> the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
> that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
> to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
> as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
> a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
> to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
> of a creator, are fooling themselves.
I'll have to take your word for that, as I haven't much of a clue.
>
> There are a good number of people who give
> every indication that they are strong atheists
> except for one: That they deny it. Why? It's part
> of the amusement, but it's also pathetic.
Pathetic amusement, eh? FOTFL
Recently
> we've seen from other threads that none of the
> supposed atheists in several ngs are willing to admit
> their faith. So what to think? They ridicule others
> for considering the possibility of a creator, yet they
> are also unwilling to admit their own faith that a
> creator does not exist. It goes beyond that to the
> point that such people are ashamed to admit their
> faith in anything. That has been tested in several
> ngs, and found to be true. Not only are strong
> atheists ashamed of their own faith, but amusingly
> it seems that some of them even consider themselves
> to "free thinkers". It is hilarious that people who have
> taken their mental refuge in that one extremely limiting
> possibility, also consider themselves to be free thinkers!
>
>
I'm not a free thinker, in that I do accept gratuities.
Proud Yankee
> It goes beyond that to the
> point that such people are ashamed to admit their
> faith in anything.
I have faith that organized religion will always attract con artists.
Elf M. Sternberg
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:10:41 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>>>>Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>>>>automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>>>>historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>>>>concepts.
> A deity-belief called "God" is only different from all the others to
> its followers.
> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
> If you're not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called
> "God" is.
I think it's quite unfair and disengenious of you to claim
that I can't have a dialogue with someone who *is* a Christian,
Muslim, or Jew because they have an affirmative belief that I lack.
Of course I can. And I can attack their belief on the grounds that
what they believe in is historically suspect, evidently vacuous, and
morally repugnant.
In the meantime, nobody (and I mean *nobody*) has yet shown me
any reason at all to suspect that the universe is anything other than
a vast accident of which we are a tiny component, as irrelevant to the
vast stochastic thing that is the universe as ants are to the gears of
Big Ben. Until and unless I have reason to change my thinking, my
knowledge falls back to the default position: there does not exist,
anywhere and at any time, beings not subject to the ordinary and
regular processes of the universe, who are interested in and have
power over those processes. (In fact, I'll go so far as to claim that
the belief that such beings *might* exist is a morally repugnant
claim.)
If that's not strong atheism, what is?
Michael Gray
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:10:41 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
>> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>>>>>Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>>>>>automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>>>>>historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>>>>>concepts.
>
>> A deity-belief called "God" is only different from all the others to
>> its followers.
>
>> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
>> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
>> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
>
>> If you're not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called
>> "God" is.
>
> I think it's quite unfair and disengenious of you to claim
>that I can't have a dialogue with someone who *is* a Christian,
>Muslim, or Jew because they have an affirmative belief that I lack.
I fail to see where Mr. Lee did such a thing.
Diana
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:64qa5uF...@mid.individual.net...
> dh@. wrote:
<snip to here>
>
> ... that you're a stammering imbecile.
>
> Now do tell us the difference between a weak virgin and a strong virgin,
> and which category the "virgin" Mary falls into, eh numbnuts?
His rhetorical ability may be a bit on the weak side, but as to your
question?
A "weak" virgin is someone who simply hasn't found a reason to have sex yet.
A 'strong' virgin is someone who has the absolute, unshakable conviction
that no sex exists, and if it did, it wouldn't be any fun anyway, and so
would rather drag pigs through pools than admit that such an activity is
possible.
Y'know, that's a fair analogy, come to think of it. As to the 'Virgin Mary,'
she didn't stay that way.
Elf M. Sternberg
>>> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
>>> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
>>> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
>>> If you're not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called
>>> "God" is.
>> I think it's quite unfair and disengenious of you to claim
>>that I can't have a dialogue with someone who *is* a Christian,
>>Muslim, or Jew because they have an affirmative belief that I lack.
> I fail to see where Mr. Lee did such a thing.
Mr. Lee seems to be saying (and he can correct me if I'm
wrong) that when I say "There is no god," I am using that last word
with an understanding so very different from that of a theistic
listener that the communication is meaningless.
I disagree, both in the particulars (the Christian God, the
Jewish God, etc) and in the abstract sense of *any* supernatural
influence.
Christopher A. Lee
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>>>> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
>>>> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
>>>> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
>
>>>> If you're not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called
>>>> "God" is.
>
>>> I think it's quite unfair and disengenious of you to claim
>>>that I can't have a dialogue with someone who *is* a Christian,
>>>Muslim, or Jew because they have an affirmative belief that I lack.
>
>> I fail to see where Mr. Lee did such a thing.
I didn't.
> Mr. Lee seems to be saying (and he can correct me if I'm
>wrong) that when I say "There is no god," I am using that last word
>with an understanding so very different from that of a theistic
>listener that the communication is meaningless.
You're wrong.
You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
to that effect.
> I disagree, both in the particulars (the Christian God, the
>Jewish God, etc) and in the abstract sense of *any* supernatural
>influence.
Why do atheists have to be inside the theist paradigm to see the
theist's gods in the light theists do?
> Elf
Elf M. Sternberg
> You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
> to that effect.
No, I said strong atheism is the only reasonable stance to
take *at all*. Theists are simply wrong. Weak atheists hold to a
peculiar agnosticism.
>> I disagree, both in the particulars (the Christian God, the
>>Jewish God, etc) and in the abstract sense of *any* supernatural
>>influence.
> Why do atheists have to be inside the theist paradigm to see the
> theist's gods in the light theists do?
I don't believe I said that they did. In fact, you're the one
arguing that they do:
> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc. If you're not
> Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called "God" is.
What are you claiming in this paragraph? As I read it, you're
claiming that the atheist, because he's not a Christian, Muslim, or
Jew, can only see the theist's god as a cultural or anthropological
phenomena, not "the theist's gods in the light theists do."
Christopher A. Lee
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
>> to that effect.
>
> No, I said strong atheism is the only reasonable stance to
>take *at all*. Theists are simply wrong. Weak atheists hold to a
>peculiar agnosticism.
No they don't. Because they don't have anything to be agnostic about.
But then I suspect you know this.
And I said it's merely somebody else's religious belief. Outside that
it's a character in a story.
There's nothing to "believe doesn't exist" - which is what a strong
atheist is supposed to be.
Because that's not what gods are outside the theist's beliefs.
All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
Mark K. Bilbo
"Robibnikoff" <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
> news:m2olb5-...@75-104-203-76.cust.wildblue.net...
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:59:05 -1100 in
>> jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>>> quite amusing.<snip>
>>
>> Oh my.
>>
>> Do the words "arrogant prick" mean anything to you?
>
> They should. They describe what he is as well as what he doesn't have.
Well, his may be arrogant but without warrant...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're
told. Religion is doing what you're told, not matter what
is right."
- Jerry Sturdivant
Michael Gray
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>>>> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
>>>> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
>>>> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
>
>>>> If you're not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called
>>>> "God" is.
>
>>> I think it's quite unfair and disengenious of you to claim
>>>that I can't have a dialogue with someone who *is* a Christian,
>>>Muslim, or Jew because they have an affirmative belief that I lack.
>
>> I fail to see where Mr. Lee did such a thing.
>
> Mr. Lee seems to be saying (and he can correct me if I'm
>wrong) that when I say "There is no god," I am using that last word
Are you able to provide a quote from him with message id to that
effect?
I cannot recall his saying such a thing.
Elf M. Sternberg
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:07:40 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>>> You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
>>> to that effect.
> All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
Okay, I accept that. Now the $64,000 question:
"What is a theist?"
Christopher A. Lee
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:07:40 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
>> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
>>>> to that effect.
>
>> All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>
> Okay, I accept that. Now the $64,000 question:
>
> "What is a theist?"
Not my problem.
> Elf
Michael Gray
<e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:07:40 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
>> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
>>>> to that effect.
>
>> All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
>
> Okay, I accept that. Now the $64,000 question:
>
> "What is a theist?"
Let those who claim such a state explain that.
Azure
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:59:05 -1100 in
> jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com, dh@. wrote:
>
> > The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
> > quite amusing.<snip>
>
> Oh my.
>
> Do the words "arrogant prick" mean anything to you?
YES, means People with A.A. Serial Numbers
Azure
>
> Michael Gray <mike...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> >>> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
> >>> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
> >>> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
FEW have records proving their family is the Descendants of Zeus, or
Odin.
Fewer Yet can Prove there Father was the House of Zeus and the Mother
was the House of Odin!
Regardless of your Atheistic Lies!
I "AM".
_ Prof. Jonez _
Because their "god" doesn't exist outside their self-delusion?
Christopher A. Lee
It does, but not in the way theists see it. It is a character is the
myths and legends of somebody else's religion.
In the real world it is "what somebody believes". Not something that
could or could not exist. A belief not a thing.
_ Prof. Jonez _
"We must respect the other fellow's religion,
but only in the sense and to the extent that
we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful
and his children smart."
- H.L. Mencken
Immortalist
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:23:40 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> > <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
How would you define atheism?
> - Show quoted text -
dh
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:59:05 -1100, dh@. wrote:
>
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>>quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
>>I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>>members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>>more than one, if any.
>>
>You are an atheist or you are not.
I am a weak atheist. I don't like the title, but I didn't
get to name it.
>There are no classifications. Period.
_________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
. . .
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.
Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could
be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a
weak atheist in terms of others.
Historically, the terms negative and positive atheism have been used to
denote this distinction. Within negative or weak atheism, philosopher
Anthony Kenny distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim
"God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider
all God-talk to be meaningless.[1]
Since many self-described agnostics specifically distinguish their stance
from that of atheists, yet would also fit the general definition of "weak
atheism," the validity of this categorisation is disputed. Another problem
is whether "strong" atheists must consider themselves able to prove
authoritatively that a god does not exist, or rather, if they must only
disbelieve in such a god in order to qualify.
. . .
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
>On Mar 24, 4:59 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>> quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
>> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>> more than one, if any.
>>
>> A.
>> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
>> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
>> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
>> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
>> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>>
>
>That sort of person is generally considered an
>"agnostic", rather than an atheist.
>
>> B.
>> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
>> more amusing things I learned is that people who
>> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
>> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
>> in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
>> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
>> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>>
>
>If they are not willing to admit it, then how
>do you know? Did you read their diaries?
>
>Personally, I don't know of any atheist
>who are ashamed to admit it.
>
>> C.
>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>
>
>Christopher Hitchens
>Daniel Dennett
>Richard Dawkins
>Penn and Teller
>James Randi
>Isaac Asimov
>Dave Barry
>Richard Branson
>me
If you're willing to admit your faith that a creator does
not exist, then go ahead and do it.
>...and hundreds more.
That's the sort of thing I expected, so when I found that
none of them were willing to admit their faith it was surprising,
amusing, and pathetic to me.
dh
>> ...and hundreds more.
>>
>> -jc
>>
>>
>>
>> > Weak atheists such as myself must consider
>> > the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
>> > that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
>> > to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
>> > as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
>> > a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
>> > to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
>> > of a creator, are fooling themselves.
>>
>> > There are a good number of people who give
>> > every indication that they are strong atheists
>> > except for one: That they deny it. Why? It's part
>> > of the amusement, but it's also pathetic. Recently
>> > we've seen from other threads that none of the
>> > supposed atheists in several ngs are willing to admit
>> > their faith. So what to think? They ridicule others
>> > for considering the possibility of a creator, yet they
>> > are also unwilling to admit their own faith that a
>> > creator does not exist. It goes beyond that to the
>> > point that such people are ashamed to admit their
>> > faith in anything. That has been tested in several
>> > ngs, and found to be true. Not only are strong
>> > atheists ashamed of their own faith, but amusingly
>> > it seems that some of them even consider themselves
>> > to "free thinkers". It is hilarious that people who have
>> > taken their mental refuge in that one extremely limiting
>> > possibility, also consider themselves to be free thinkers!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>In Definitions B and C, there is no atheist faith involved.
>
>JohnN
You have it completely backwards. Strong atheists
have faith, and weak ones do not. That IS the difference
between the two.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>> quite amusing.
>
>As wew see, you are easily amused.
>
>> There are several types of atheists.
>> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>> more than one, if any.
>>
>> A.
>> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
>> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
>
>Bullshit. You are a believer.
>
>> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
>> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
>> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>>
>> B.
>> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith
>
>Confirmed. I have no faith to be ashamed of. Only a theist would say
>something so stupid.
>
>> one of the
>> more amusing things I learned is that people who
>> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
>> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
>> in that being the correct possibility.
>
>I have no problem considering it a possibility any more than I have a
>problem believing it is possible that a beautiful alien female will take me
>away and bang the bejesus out of me. Neither are likely so I don't even
>consider them.
>
>> I feel that I've
>> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
>> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>
>Consider us introduced.
If you're willing to admit your faith that a creator does not
exist, then just do it.
>> Weak atheists such as myself must consider
>> the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
>> that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
>> to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
>> as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
>> a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
>> to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
>> of a creator, are fooling themselves.
>
>Ergo...you are not an atheist.
I'm a weak atheist, so I consider the possibility
that a creator does exist. If you don't then you're
a strong atheist, whether you admit it or deny it.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com...
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>> quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
>> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>> more than one, if any.
>>
>> A.
>> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
>> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
>> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
>> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
>> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>>
>> B.
>> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
>> more amusing things I learned is that people who
>> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
>> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
>> in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
>> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
>> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>>
>> C.
>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>
>> Weak atheists such as myself must consider
>> the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
>> that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
>> to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
>> as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
>> a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
>> to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
>> of a creator, are fooling themselves.
>>
>> There are a good number of people who give
>> every indication that they are strong atheists
>> except for one: That they deny it. Why? It's part
>> of the amusement, but it's also pathetic. Recently
>> we've seen from other threads that none of the
>> supposed atheists in several ngs are willing to admit
>> their faith. So what to think? They ridicule others
>> for considering the possibility of a creator, yet they
>> are also unwilling to admit their own faith that a
>> creator does not exist. It goes beyond that to the
>> point that such people are ashamed to admit their
>> faith in anything. That has been tested in several
>> ngs, and found to be true. Not only are strong
>> atheists ashamed of their own faith, but amusingly
>> it seems that some of them even consider themselves
>> to "free thinkers". It is hilarious that people who have
>> taken their mental refuge in that one extremely limiting
>> possibility, also consider themselves to be free thinkers!
>>
>
>What catagory is it when you ROFL
Do you have faith that a creator does not exist?
If so, are you willing to admit it? Do you think other
people should, or should not?
dh
>dh@. writes:
>
>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>
> Fine. Meet another.
If you're willing to admit your faith that a creator
does not exist, then just do it.
>
> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>historical contradiction
Human screw ups in interpretation don't have anything to
do with whether or not a creator exists. You yourself are a
perfect example if he does. If a creator does exist, none are
more wrong and more clueless than strong atheists.
>is indistinguishable from atheological
>concepts.
>
> Elf
dh
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:25:31 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
><e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>dh@. writes:
>>
>>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>
>> Fine. Meet another.
>>
>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>>Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>>automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>>historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>>concepts.
>
>Only if you even see a deity-belief called "God" differently than
>Zeus, Odin and all the others.
>
>For those who don't, it's a cultural phenomenon. A religious belief.
>Not something that has any meaning beyond that.
>
>> Elf
If "God" does exist, then all who refer to him are referring to
the same being regardless of what they call him or what they
think about him.
dh
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:59:05 -1100 in
>jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com, dh@. wrote:
>
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>> quite amusing.<snip>
>
>Oh my.
>
>Do the words "arrogant prick" mean anything to you?
LOL!!!
dh
>In article <jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com>, <dh@.> wrote:
>
>> C.
>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith
>
>You got me, cocksucker.
>
>-chib
dh
>dh@. wrote in news:jo8gu35ci7ad4ohup...@4ax.com:
>
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>> quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
>> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>> more than one, if any.
>
>This is a mathematically very strange statement. It boggles the mind
>just to consider "more than one, if any".
It means I might have encountered one, but not
more than one if so.
>> A.
>> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
>> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
>> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
>> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
>> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>>
>
>Wait, you encountered an atheist like this? Or this is you,
That's me. The possible one I referred to is in C.
>and if so
>did "more than one, if any" mean that you only encountered yourself?
>
>> B.
>> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
>> more amusing things I learned is that people who
>> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
>> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
>> in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
>> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
>> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>>
>
>Ashamed of what faith?
Their faith that a creator does not exist.
>I thought Atheists didn't have a faith
Weak atheists do not. Strong atheists do.
>or if so, faith in what?
_________________________________________________________
. . .
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> C.
>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>
>(See previous comment.) By the way, I now see that A, B, and C total 3
>items. Now I am really confused about your first sentence, in addition
>to your second sentence. At least you have formed actual sentences. That
>could be a plus..
>
>>
>> Weak atheists such as myself must consider
>> the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
>> that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
>> to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
>> as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
>> a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
>> to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
>> of a creator, are fooling themselves.
>
>I'll have to take your word for that, as I haven't much of a clue.
>>
>> There are a good number of people who give
>> every indication that they are strong atheists
>> except for one: That they deny it. Why? It's part
>> of the amusement, but it's also pathetic.
>
>Pathetic amusement, eh? FOTFL
There are many pathetic situations which are also
amusing, and many of them exist in news groups.
>Recently
>> we've seen from other threads that none of the
>> supposed atheists in several ngs are willing to admit
>> their faith. So what to think? They ridicule others
>> for considering the possibility of a creator, yet they
>> are also unwilling to admit their own faith that a
>> creator does not exist. It goes beyond that to the
>> point that such people are ashamed to admit their
>> faith in anything. That has been tested in several
>> ngs, and found to be true. Not only are strong
>> atheists ashamed of their own faith, but amusingly
>> it seems that some of them even consider themselves
>> to "free thinkers". It is hilarious that people who have
>> taken their mental refuge in that one extremely limiting
>> possibility, also consider themselves to be free thinkers!
>
>I'm not a free thinker, in that I do accept gratuities.
They're not free thinkers, in that they limit their thinking.
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>
> > It goes beyond that to the
>> point that such people are ashamed to admit their
>> faith in anything.
>
>I have faith that organized religion will always attract con artists.
I have faith in that too. Do you have faith that a creator
does not exist? I don't.
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>> quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
>> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>> more than one, if any.
>>
>> A.
>> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
>> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
>> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
>> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
>> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>>
>> B.
>> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
>> more amusing things I learned is that people who
>> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
>> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
>> in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
>> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
>> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>>
>> C.
>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>
>> Weak atheists such as myself must consider ...
>
>... that you're a stammering imbecile.
What about the facts I pointed out have gotten you
upset, do you have any idea? Obviously something
about them has disturbed your little mental safety zone.
Do you know exactly what it is, or do you just know
you're upset about something but can't figure out
exactly what?
CopernicusN
Let the floodgates open!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The answer did not address the question, so his definition of atheism
is not relevent.
Why do atheists have to be inside the theist paradigm to see the
theist god?
Answer : They do not.
And here is why according to my definition of atheist.
First there is theist. This denotes a person who believes in a god or
god of some kind, for everyone else there is "a-theist": a person who
does not believe in such a thing. Theist is vauge because there are a
million gods and most theists reject all but one of them.
For atheists there is an absence of belief in which we go one god
further and reject them all OR (and this is significant) have never
heard of god. I'm not sure that such a person exists (unless very
young) but the definition of atheist must include such a person, for
there is nothing else which is universal about the definition:
"absence of belief in a god."
It is this type of atheist which do not " have to be inside the
paradigm..."
In any case the paradigm (god, theos) is so vauge as to be meaningless
and so vast in its confusion as to be rendered obsolete: so who cares
if atheist is "inside the paradigm"
_ Prof. Jonez _
BULLSHIT.
Which "god" are you claiming exists ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:25:31 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> dh@. writes:
>>
>>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>
>> Fine. Meet another.
>
> If you're willing to admit your faith that a creator
> does not exist, then just do it.
No faith required to disbelieve YOUR absurd
proposition of a "god".
_ Prof. Jonez _
No "faith" is required to disbelieve your absurd proposition
of "god".
_ Prof. Jonez _
No "faith" is required to disbelieve your absurd proposition
of "god".
_ Prof. Jonez _
No "faith" is required to disbelieve your absurd proposition
of "god".
Lord Vetinari
news:13uo2lg...@corp.supernews.com...
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally stupid fuckwit and
> a credulous believer - lied and presented no challenge:
[snip]
>> You have it completely backwards. Strong atheists
>> have faith,
>
> "win" a typically stupid Fuckwit point.
I'll just have to say that he has _earned_ a stupid Fuckwit point. Now, of
what value _are_ these "points"?
Lord Vetinari
[snip]
> Do you have faith that a creator does not exist?
> If so, are you willing to admit it? Do you think other
> people should, or should not?
Amazing, isn't it? Referring, of course, to these cretins with low IQs who
cannot recognize their position, intellectually & educationally speaking.
So, why don't you just give it up, cretin? We can clearly see the strings
that control you, you know.
Lord Vetinari
>>... that you're a stammering imbecile.
>
> What about the facts I pointed out have gotten you
> upset, do you have any idea?
Hey dipshit, hasn't it occurred to you that you are required to _post_
facts, before you may "point them out?"
> Obviously something
> about them has disturbed your little mental safety zone.
> Do you know exactly what it is, or do you just know
> you're upset about something but can't figure out
> exactly what?
'Tis a simple thing, and that simple thing is your habit of trodding upon
our toes. Why don't you go find yourself some manners, you rude creature?
Don't let me detain you.
Lord Vetinari
Pointless, cretin, pointless. Careful now, I might just take back your
"stupid Fuckwit point".
How about a nice quote?
The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown,
the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is
safety.
- H. L. Mencken
Your odor is giving you away...If you've got nothing to hide, you have
nothing to fear.
Lord Vetinari
If only you had a dictionary, and knew how to use it.......
Here's a thought, why don't you go find a dictionary somewhere? You could
look up words like "faith" and "dissemble" and......of course, you'll need
to find an adult to explain the definitions to you.
Mr.Smartypants
> Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, THE GOOBER, a colossally
> stupid fuckwit and a credulous believer - lied and
> presented no challenge:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:25:31 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> >> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
> >>>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
> >>>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
> >>> Fine. Meet another.
>
> >>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
> >>> Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
> >>> automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
> >>> historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
> >>> concepts.
> >> Only if you even see a deity-belief called "God" differently than
> >> Zeus, Odin and all the others.
>
> >> For those who don't, it's a cultural phenomenon. A religious belief.
> >> Not something that has any meaning beyond that.
>
> >>> Elf
>
> > If "God" does exist,
>
> one is fooled
What's wrong with that Goobs?
Diana
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:6528ruF...@mid.individual.net...
You are quite right. No faith is required for disbelief in deity.
However, it does require faith to believe that there is no deity.
...and yes, there is a difference.
Azure
>
> Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:07:40 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> > <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
> >>> to that effect.
>
>
> Okay, I accept that. Now the $64,000 question:
>
> "What is a theist?"
>
> Elf
>
> --
> Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
> http://www.pendorwright.com/
>
> Elf's latest stories are available in paperback! Buy
> the genderbending novel _Sterlings_, available
> now from http://stores.lulu.com/elfsternberg
Elf as in ELPH or E.L.F.????????
ELPH maybe I am interested.
Seems you reference Dyionisian Ways, but is it Apollo?
What do you call an Ear of Corn??
Do you understand Midian, Jethro, Domnald, Amergin.
I love that one, a "Shape Shifter" who told one of the most Beautiful
Women in the World "NO"!
Azure
>
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:16:29 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> >Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:07:40 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> >> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
> >>>> to that effect.
> >
> >> All an atheist is, is somebody who isn't theist.
> >
> > Okay, I accept that. Now the $64,000 question:
> >
> > "What is a theist?"
>
Would not an Atheist also be a Theist, as in example the use "A"
Typical?
Free Lunch
Azure <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote in
<13urfm1...@corp.supernews.com>:
An atheist would not be a theist.
Azure
>
> dh@. wrote:
>
> > Weak atheists such as myself
>
> You are not any kind of atheist, Fuckwit. You are a
> stupid lying pimply-ass Southern Baptist cracker trying
> to play another of your loser fuckwitted word games,
> and of course, you are losing, again.
>
> Since by now even you should be aware of the FACT
> that if God exists he won't allow proof of his
> existence,
>
> Fuckwit David Harrison
> 27 Mar 2007
> http://tinyurl.com/2rgks2
>
> But earlier:
>
> I was raised to believe in God, and didn't want to
> be an "atheist"...in fact never even considered the
> idea. Now I am a weak atheist, and expect to remain
> one the rest of my life unless God lets me know he
> does exist at some point.
> Fuckwit David Harrison
> 11 Feb 2007
> http://tinyurl.com/22shdh
>
> So what you've said, Fuckwit, is that you will remain
> an atheist *EVEN IF* "god" lets you know that he
> exists, because according to you, if "god" does exist,
> he won't allow proof of his existence, so you would
> necessarily view any sign or signal that he does exist
> to be inauthentic, based on your statement above of
> what is allegedly a "FACT".
>
> You are so crushingly stupid, Fuckwit, it's amazing you
> can even feed yourself or tie your own shoes.
Jesus replaced God, therefore God can not be proven.
If one proves God, they will attack to shut you up.
Like Jacob found, they have severed the branches from the tree to
prevent the fruit from knowing its roots.
Mankind hates God so much, they attempted to "Lock God in a Mountain"!
Whining, Crying, Bawl
>
> > therefore God can not be proven.
>
>
> You are a fucking idiot.-
You believe in God, your Creator.
You know you do.
Sanity's Little Helper
news:66bca4fb-606a-498e...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com to
alt.atheism on 29 Mar 2008:
Nobody honestly believes in God.
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
BAAWA
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
Holder of rights to the stage musical "The Shining".
Not authentic without this signature.
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk
> Would not an Atheist also be a Theist, as in example the use "A"
> Typical?
Well, few if any christians believe in the Norse or Greek gods despite there
is exactly the same lack of evidence for existance. To claim that such
christians are "atheist" without qualification would be exceedingly
confusing and open to accusations of Humpty Dumptyism. Equally, to accuse
atheists in general of only disbelieving in the christian god but secretly
believing in some other god would be disingenuous without evidence.
--
Robert A Heinlein: Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark
cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
gitarthi
> dh@. wrote:
> > The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
> > quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
> > I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
> > members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
> > more than one, if any.
>
> > A.
> > Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
> > whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
> > of what appears to be a very unique type since I
> > openly consider the possibility that a creator does
> > exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>
> > B.
> > Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
> > more amusing things I learned is that people who
> > ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
> > a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
> > in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
> > met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
> > yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>
> > C.
> > Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
> > that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
> > haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
> > atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>
>
> ... that you're a stammering imbecile.
>
> and which category the "virgin" Mary falls into, eh numbnuts?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have a point but can you put it more decently. Many paople confuse
between godlessness and atheism. Sankhya is Godless asGod 's exiztence
cannot be proved but it does not deny God.
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Sorry but A-theos-ism means the way of thinking without a god.
It actually does not require the practisioners to deny a god.
The problem is of course that the dictionairies contain a discription
that is different,
In spite of these posters on alt.atheism maintain that no denial is
nescessairy.
In spite of this much of the postings are filled with words just to do
that
(deny a god). Which is a shame. One should instead show the world that
the way of thinking is worth while, by actually leaving god(s) out of
the discussion.
Thanks for making me think of these things.
Peter van Velzen
March 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
marques de sade
<elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>Nobody honestly believes in God.
so what do you suggest accounts for islamist-style holy jihad, if
it's not belief. you mean someone straps a bomb on him/herself
because they know it's all a lie? Not to mention following a
pedophile, in the first place? (eg: muhammed was 51 when he had
sex with his wife aysha who was 9 at the time) I mean, if that's
not a clue of what's to come... I don't know what is... And if you
somehow can rationalize the pedophilia, then don't be so shocked
when the chickens come home to roost in the form of holy-jihad.
octinomos
--
`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson
Tom
"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:47efcdbb....@news.sysmatrix.net...
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:11:51 +0100 (CET), "Sanity's Little Helper"
> <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>
>>Nobody honestly believes in God.
>
> so what do you suggest accounts for islamist-style holy jihad, if
> it's not belief. you mean someone straps a bomb on him/herself
> because they know it's all a lie?
Maybe he means that religious belief is an attempt to falsely deny the
reality of death. Hence, one may truly believe something that is in itself
a falsehood.
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:j8bou3her0f6n29vr...@4ax.com...
>[snip]
>> Do you have faith that a creator does not exist?
>> If so, are you willing to admit it? Do you think other
>> people should, or should not?
>
>Amazing, isn't it? Referring, of course, to these cretins with low IQs who
>cannot recognize their position
There are idiots who refuse to admit their OBVIOUS faith in the
possibility that a creator does not exist. The question your point
immediately brings to mind is whether they are really too stupid to
understand, or they are lying deliberately trying to make people
believe they honestly are that stupid.
dh
Not to someone who can grasp the significance of it. Duh.
>cretin, pointless. Careful now, I might just take back your
>"stupid Fuckwit point".
>
>How about a nice quote?
>The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown,
>the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is
>safety.
>
>- H. L. Mencken
That's why some people retreat to a little mental safety bubble
refusing to consider that God might exist, and from that position
they often deny being in it.
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:mdbou39l85p4ufd3o...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:50:28 GMT, Proud Yankee <sd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>> > It goes beyond that to the
>>>> point that such people are ashamed to admit their
>>>> faith in anything.
>>>
>>>I have faith that organized religion will always attract con artists.
>>
>> I have faith in that too. Do you have faith that a creator
>> does not exist? I don't.
>
>If
Do you have faith that a creator does not exist? I don't.
Why do you think I should?
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:34:24 -0400, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>>>> quite amusing.
>>>
>>> As wew see, you are easily amused.
>>>
>>>> There are several types of atheists.
>>>> I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>>>> members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>>>> more than one, if any.
>>>>
>>>> A.
>>>> Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
>>>> whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
>>>
>>> Bullshit. You are a believer.
>>>
>>>> of what appears to be a very unique type since I
>>>> openly consider the possibility that a creator does
>>>> exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>>>>
>>>> B.
>>>> Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith
>>>
>>> Confirmed. I have no faith to be ashamed of. Only a theist would say
>>> something so stupid.
>>>
>>>> one of the
>>>> more amusing things I learned is that people who
>>>> ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
>>>> a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
>>>> in that being the correct possibility.
>>>
>>> I have no problem considering it a possibility any more than I have a
>>> problem believing it is possible that a beautiful alien female will
>>> take me away and bang the bejesus out of me. Neither are likely so I
>>> don't even consider them.
>>>
>>>> I feel that I've
>>>> met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
>>>> yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>>>
>>> Consider us introduced.
>>
>> If you're willing to admit your faith that a creator does not
>> exist, then just do it.
>
>No "faith" is required to disbelieve
Obviously it is. Why are you in denial about that, do you
have any idea?
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:32:38 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:25:31 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
>>> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>>>>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>>>>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>>>>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>>>>
>>>> Fine. Meet another.
>>>>
>>>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>>>> Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>>>> automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary,
>>>> and historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>>>> concepts.
>>>
>>> Only if you even see a deity-belief called "God" differently than
>>> Zeus, Odin and all the others.
>>>
>>> For those who don't, it's a cultural phenomenon. A religious belief.
>>> Not something that has any meaning beyond that.
>>>
>>>> Elf
>>
>> If "God" does exist, then all who refer to him are referring to
>> the same being regardless of what they call him or what they
>> think about him.
>
>BULLSH
The same is true of the sun, and the moon, and the planets
including the Earth. It's so basic that everyone should figure it
out for himself without the need of someone else explaining it.
dh
>On Mar 27, 2:03 pm, Goo lied:
>
>> dh pointed out:
>>
>> > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:32:38 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:25:31 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
>> >> <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> dh pointed out:
>>
>> >>>> Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>> >>>> that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>> >>>> haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>> >>>> atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>> >>> Fine. Meet another.
>>
>> >>> Strong atheism is, in fact, the only valid possibility.
>> >>> Anything else is incoherent. Any description of deity that is not
>> >>> automatically suspect because of its universal moral, evidentiary, and
>> >>> historical contradiction is indistinguishable from atheological
>> >>> concepts.
>> >> Only if you even see a deity-belief called "God" differently than
>> >> Zeus, Odin and all the others.
>>
>> >> For those who don't, it's a cultural phenomenon. A religious belief.
>> >> Not something that has any meaning beyond that.
>>
>> >>> Elf
>>
>> > If "God" does exist,
>>
>> Cut the bullshit, Fuckwit. You believe in "god". No
>> one is fooled
>
>
>What's wrong with that Goobs?
I'm guessing the Goober is one who disbelieves in God, and
is ashamed to admit his faith in that. It's also likely Goo will try
to pretend he has somehow "learned" that God does not exist,
even as he tries to deny having faith that his supposed
"knowledge" is correct. Such idiocy is ceartainly a job for Goo.
dh
_________________________________________________________
. . .
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 problem is of course that the dictionairies contain a discription
>that is different,
No. The problem is that, amusingly, some atheists don't
understand the difference between the two different types
of belief...
>In spite of these posters on alt.atheism maintain that no denial is
>nescessairy.
...and then there is the denial. Some people deny that a
creator might exist, and then they deny their faith in that.
Those are the lamest of all.
>In spite of this much of the postings are filled with words just to do
>that
>(deny a god). Which is a shame. One should instead show the world that
>the way of thinking is worth while, by actually leaving god(s) out of
>the discussion.
Leave gods out of discussions about belief in gods...
hmmm...sounds uselessly shallow.
>Thanks for making me think of these things.
Keep on thinking Pete...
dh
>
>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:47efcdbb....@news.sysmatrix.net...
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:11:51 +0100 (CET), "Sanity's Little Helper"
>> <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Nobody honestly believes in God.
>>
>> so what do you suggest accounts for islamist-style holy jihad, if
>> it's not belief. you mean someone straps a bomb on him/herself
>> because they know it's all a lie?
>
>Maybe he means that religious belief is an attempt to falsely deny the
>reality of death.
The marques dude believes in multiple lives, believes
his "god" is in all matter living and nonliving, but denies
the possibility that a creator might exist.
>Hence, one may truly believe something that is in itself
>a falsehood.
If a creator does exist then no one is in that position
more than strong atheists, no doubt.
dh
It's amazing that anyone would be unable to understand
the fact, which brings to mind the question of whether they
are honestly that stupid or not. Are they really that stupid,
or for some reason just dishonestly pretending to be?
Going on with it: These people who deny their faith argue
and try to encourage others who consider the possible
existence a creator to put faith in the possibility that he does
not exist, even as they deny having put faith in it themselves.
That's pretty screwed up!
Tom
<dh@.> wrote in message news:vhu0v3htv5h91atma...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:45:08 -0700, "Tom"
> <dantPAYATT...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"marques de sade" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:47efcdbb....@news.sysmatrix.net...
>>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:11:51 +0100 (CET), "Sanity's Little Helper"
>>> <elv...@noshpam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nobody honestly believes in God.
>>>
>>> so what do you suggest accounts for islamist-style holy jihad, if
>>> it's not belief. you mean someone straps a bomb on him/herself
>>> because they know it's all a lie?
>>
>>Maybe he means that religious belief is an attempt to falsely deny the
>>reality of death.
>
> The marques dude believes in multiple lives, believes
> his "god" is in all matter living and nonliving, but denies
> the possibility that a creator might exist.
Well, I agree that there are multiple lives. I know quite a few living
creatures myself. Don't you?
As for his notion that "god" is all matter, living and non-living, he's not
in disagreement with anybody who proclaims the essential unity of all
things. Of course, that's not at all the same thing as a claim that there
was some sort of being who created it all and certainly isn't the same as
claiming that this being, whatever it is, has or ever had even the slightest
interest in the activities of human beings.
As for possibilities, one can always argue that this or that might be
"possible", but how might one assess the probability or plausibility of the
existence of a universal creator-being? One might easily conclude that the
claim for the existence of a creator being is implausible, given the lack of
verifiable evidence in its support.
>>Hence, one may truly believe something that is in itself
>>a falsehood.
>
> If a creator does exist then no one is in that position
> more than strong atheists, no doubt.
And if it doesn't exist, you are.
marques de sade
> Going on with it: These people who deny their faith argue
>and try to encourage others who consider the possible
>existence a creator to put faith in the possibility that he does
>not exist, even as they deny having put faith in it themselves.
>That's pretty screwed up!
no. you said that if the creator had truly existed, the result
would be much different than it is, or some such crap... i could
elaborate: yeah: there'd be no disease, no war, no hate, no death,
no anger, no injustice... the list goes on and on... you are the
one who lacks faith in your own so called creator person... my
deity, which is Nature, doesn't include a 'morality' component.
see the difference? i happily admit to faith in the lack of a
creator of the type who judges people's morality and so on... i'll
be glad to... why do you say i don't admit to it? you're screwed!
Antares 531
National Atheist's Day.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:59:05 -1100, dh@. wrote:
> The beliefs and behaviors of atheists are often
>quite amusing. There are several types of atheists.
>I'm aware of two, and expect there probably are
>members of a third group but I have yet to encounter
>more than one, if any.
>
>A.
>Weak Atheists - don't have a true belief either way
>whether a creator exists or not. I am a weak atheist
>of what appears to be a very unique type since I
>openly consider the possibility that a creator does
>exist, more than the possibility that he does not.
>
>B.
>Strong Atheists ashamed of their faith - one of the
>more amusing things I learned is that people who
>ONLY give the indication that they *disbelieve* in
>a creator, are also ashamed to admit their faith
>in that being the correct possibility. I feel that I've
>met a number of people who ARE strong atheists,
>yet amusingly they are not willing to admit it.
>
>C.
>Strong Atheists not ashamed of their faith - as yet
>that is still just a concept for me, since so far I
>haven't encountered more than one--if any--strong
>atheists who are willing to admit their own faith.
>
> Weak atheists such as myself must consider
>the possibility of a creator more than the possibility
>that he doesn't exist, because there is much more
>to consider since if a creator does not exist that's
>as far as you can ever go in that direction, while if
>a creator does there is no limit. People who claim
>to be weak atheists but don't consider the possibility
>of a creator, are fooling themselves.
>
> There are a good number of people who give
>every indication that they are strong atheists
>except for one: That they deny it. Why? It's part
>of the amusement, but it's also pathetic. Recently
>we've seen from other threads that none of the
>supposed atheists in several ngs are willing to admit
>their faith. So what to think? They ridicule others
>for considering the possibility of a creator, yet they
>are also unwilling to admit their own faith that a
>creator does not exist. It goes beyond that to the
>point that such people are ashamed to admit their
>faith in anything. That has been tested in several
>ngs, and found to be true. Not only are strong
>atheists ashamed of their own faith, but amusingly
>it seems that some of them even consider themselves
>to "free thinkers". It is hilarious that people who have
>taken their mental refuge in that one extremely limiting
>possibility, also consider themselves to be free thinkers!
>
Christopher A. Lee
<gordonl...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Please hold your cross-fire for the next 7 1/2 hours. Tomorrow is
>National Atheist's Day.
What a fucking moron.
Free Lunch
dh@. wrote in <6ft0v3dnv51tgr2nu...@4ax.com>:
Keep saying whatever you like. It won't be true, but you don't care
whether you are honest, do you.
Erwin Hessle
> One might easily conclude that the
> claim for the existence of a creator being is implausible, given the lack of
> verifiable evidence in its support.
Not to mention all the verifiable evidence against it, the apparent
necessity for complex things to arise from simple things in order to
avoid stretching the bounds of probability beyond breaking point being
the most obvious.
Erwin Hessle, 8=3
Azure
>
> On Mar 27, 4:27 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 12:56 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:23:40 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg
> > > > <e...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> writes:
> >
> > > >>>>> Everybody sees Zeus, Odin, Thor etc as cultural or anthropological
> > > >>>>> phenomena: something people believed as part of their religion,
> > > >>>>> performed rituals of supplication, told stories etc.
> >
> > > >>>>> If you're not Christian, Muslim or Jewish that's all one called
> > > >>>>> "God" is.
> >
> > > >>>> I think it's quite unfair and disengenious of you to claim
> > > >>>> that I can't have a dialogue with someone who *is* a Christian,
> > > >>>> Muslim, or Jew because they have an affirmative belief that I lack.
> >
> > > >>> I fail to see where Mr. Lee did such a thing.
> >
> > > > I didn't.
> >
> > > >> Mr. Lee seems to be saying (and he can correct me if I'm
> > > >> wrong) that when I say "There is no god," I am using that last word
> > > >> with an understanding so very different from that of a theistic
> > > >> listener that the communication is meaningless.
> >
> > > > You're wrong.
> >
> > > > You said that strong atheism was the only reasonable atheism. Or words
> > > > to that effect.
> >
> > > >> Jewish God, etc) and in the abstract sense of *any* supernatural
> > > >> influence.
> >
> > > > Why do atheists have to be inside the theist paradigm to see the
> > > > theist's gods in the light theists do?
> >
> > > Because their "god" doesn't exist outside their self-delusion?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > How would you define atheism?
>
> Let the floodgates open!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> The answer did not address the question, so his definition of atheism
> is not relevent.
> Why do atheists have to be inside the theist paradigm to see the
> theist god?
> Answer : They do not.
> And here is why according to my definition of atheist.
> First there is theist. This denotes a person who believes in a god or
> god of some kind, for everyone else there is "a-theist": a person who
> does not believe in such a thing. Theist is vauge because there are a
> million gods and most theists reject all but one of them.
No, people force seperations to sell secrets.
"THERE is ONLY, ONE GOD"
Diffrent Names, Diffrent Times, Diffrent Social Orders, but the True
God, has always been "The One".
Most Names, are flesh and blood, the "Local Gods" who walked the earth.
None of them, are the "ONE God"!
There is but the "BODY", the "ONE"!
Azure
You picked it up on Atheist which figures!
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk wrote:
>
> In alt.religion.hindu Azure <laddie'o'lugh@gall's.org> wrote:
> > Would not an Atheist also be a Theist, as in example the use "A"
> > Typical?
>
> Well, few if any christians believe in the Norse or Greek gods despite there
> is exactly the same lack of evidence for existance.
WRONG!
The KJV, directly identifies 2 Paths, Rev 12: tells the story of Lugh or
ODIN, and the Arianhod.
Most Christians do not believe in the Cave of the North Wind,
Pethagorise was a Myth Spinner only, a nut with no social basis.
I was Born, my family does exist.
Jehovah is "The Cave of the North Wind" not the name of God, the House
of the "Rainbow Bridge" the way to the "House of God"!
Jera is the name of the Mountain where the Cave to the Underground
Kingdom, Hel, Abadon, where the "Silver Wheel" is!!!!!!
To claim that such
> christians are "atheist" without qualification would be exceedingly
> confusing
Read the Bible, they "HATE GOD".
Letter to Titus, they replaced God, with Jesus.
Karmic Law is Impossible so Man replaced GOD with Jesus.
Tried to "Lock God in a Mountain", because God would come back every
2,000 years to check in.
Jacob found they had "Severed the Branches from the Tree to prevent the
Fruit from knowing their Roots.
Satan is the "Prince", Gods Heir!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesus had to be Satan, to be Gods Son.
When the one who is Born the Heir comes forth man will Kill him, Rev
11:3.
The Beast is Gods "CHOSEN", Deu 33:!
Paul the "Roman" cursed Gaul for having a different covenant and
teaching, they in turn tried to hang him for Blasphemy.