Theism - Atheism; is there only 'a' difference?
Peter Brooks
synonymic antonym, or an antonymic synonym?
The difference between a sophisticated theist & an atheist is the same
as that between a settee and a sofa. Prayer, meditation & angst are
one. Mindfulness informs life, whether it comes from the Psalms,
Beethoven, Chess, Zen, Sport, Bereavement, Love, Maths, Introspection,
Dance, or Art.
Buddha's vision saw only eight paths; why not? Eight's a good start,
easy to remember & no man steps in the same river twice, so eight
paths are as many as infinite paths.
Is there any difference at all between no gods and gods as
epiphenomena? It might seem silly to believe in gods when it has no
practical impact on anything at all, but how silly is a belief that
makes no difference to anything? Isn't it less than harmless to
believe in serendipity if the alternative is to be pessimistic?
Is it not a mistake to see belief as the cause of fanaticism, rather
than it being epiphenominal from fanaticism?
Ian Smith
Peter Brooks
wrote:
>
Hardly even an annoyed posting actually.
PG
de news: 3MmdnRuqla6h9IbW...@brightview.co.uk...
>"Beware the cross posting"
Hmm Peter Brooks is one of the rare people that makes any sense on usenet,
and on this topic in particular, so cross-posting from him I do not mind. He
was also around upa long before most of the current regulars turned up.
Interesting post PB, but after two hours sleep I shall need to reflect on
that one later :-)
pg
John O'Flaherty
Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
runs, approximately,
Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
color.
--
John
Tom Keske
>
Oh, I don't know about that. I think that nearly every atheist has a
defacto
goddess, whether they know it or not, and they are as dependent for their
peace of mind on the imagined benevolence of their goddess
as a religious person is dependent on the imagined love of their
wrathful, spiteful God.
Their goddess is Lady Luck, and she is really a bitch, like Mother Nature,
lacking a scintilla of caring or compassion.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair color.
>>
>
>Oh, I don't know about that. I think that nearly every atheist has a
>defacto goddess, whether they know it or not, and they are as dependent
>for their peace of mind on the imagined benevolence of their goddess
>as a religious person is dependent on the imagined love of their
>wrathful, spiteful God.
I don't think you're a fucking moron, I KNOW you are.
>Their goddess is Lady Luck, and she is really a bitch, like Mother Nature,
>lacking a scintilla of caring or compassion.
Like I said: a fucking moron.
Skitt
Only the superstitious have gods or goddesses.
--
Skitt (AmE)
look out for that black cat!
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
And they project their nedd for them onto everybody else.
R H Draney
>
>Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>runs, approximately,
>Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>color.
The Arizona Department of Transportation does that...they even have a preferred
two-letter abbreviation, for it for use on drivers licenses....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Ian Smith
I agree. But cross posting is bad practice, come what may.
PB also posted with on the humanist group, without cross posting to
other - which is what he should have done here.
Not all out posts being sent to each group!
regards, Ian
Skitt
> PG wrote:
>> "Ian Smith" a �crit:
>>> "Beware the cross posting"
>>
>> Hmm Peter Brooks is one of the rare people that makes any sense on
>> usenet, and on this topic in particular, so cross-posting from him I
>> do not mind. He was also around upa long before most of the current
>> regulars turned up. Interesting post PB, but after two hours sleep I
>> shall need to
>> reflect on that one later :-)
>
> I agree. But cross posting is bad practice, come what may.
>
> PB also posted with on the humanist group, without cross posting to
> other - which is what he should have done here.
>
> Not all out posts being sent to each group!
It's not nice to be cross when posting.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/
Peter Moylan
> John O'Flaherty filted:
>> Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>> runs, approximately,
>> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>> color.
>
> The Arizona Department of Transportation does that...they even have a preferred
> two-letter abbreviation, for it for use on drivers licenses....r
Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a religion?
ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Tom Keske
> A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
> An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
> more full like this?...or like this?
An optimist sees the glass of poison as half full,
and the pessimist sees it has as half empty.
Tom Keske
You seem to think that I am taking the side of religion,
but if I had my way, I would smash its existence in the
style of the French Revolution.
However, I see everyday secularly-minded people, who
athough they are seeing the picture more clearly, are possessed
of their own illusions. They don't think that they need a benevolent
god, but seem to think that Life just works out OK, naturally,
that progress in the natural order, that the future redeems the
past. The believe in the nobility of causes and struggles.
Anyone who truely had no implicit illusions and saw the world
for exactly what it is, could hardly survive. They would have
committed suicide long ago, and would not be here to argue
their own case.
I would think nothing of grabbing the superstitious, privileged
hate-mongers in the Churches and leading them off to gullotines.
I neither have hope for supernatural assistance nor
supernatural condemnation. I think that our
existence is essentially a meaningless accident, a world
of madness that will never amount to much more than
what it is, today.
The world in which we live is up to its eyeballs in illusion
and denial, all cultures, all sides of the political battles.
Tom Keske
"Christopher A. Le" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dqunh59eemg6cnfef...@4ax.com...
Tom Keske
> An optimist sees the glass of poison as half full,
> and the pessimist sees it has as half empty.
No wait, that is the other way around.
Oh, it does not matter. Nothing really matters.
It is like we are not really even here. I suppose
that in a way, that is reassuring.
Tom Keske
Steve Hayes
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
(nothing)
And your point is?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
>Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a religion?
>
>ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
>Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
I believe in AmE that is now "rendition".
R H Draney
>
>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:27:31 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
>
>>Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a religion?
>>
>>ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
>>Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
>
>I believe in AmE that is now "rendition".
The opposite of "manumission"....r
R H Draney
Have you been reading Dorothy Parker?...r
--
Garrett Wollman
Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
>R H Draney wrote:
>> The Arizona Department of Transportation does that...they even have a
>> preferred
>> two-letter abbreviation, for it for use on drivers licenses....r
>
>Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a religion?
The Department, I'm certain, does not, at least officially -- it's not
allowed to. On the other hand, they may put the information on the
license so that the police call in (or don't) the right kind of clergy
should you be found /in extremis/ and unable to speak for yourself
after a collision.
The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles does not concern itself
with such things.
ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
where the first noun can occur in the plural. We've discussed here
that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
gen.sg. in that slot, and British usage, IIRC, is "driving licence"
(or is that "license", too -- I'm glad I speak a dialect that doesn't
make that distinction).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Garrett Wollman
In article <khjnh5da4bhui1j25...@4ax.com>,
John O'Flaherty <quia...@yeeha.com> quoted some unidentified person
as saying:
>Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling ________ a ________.
I used to disagree very strongly with claims following this snowclone
template, but I now disagree only mildly, for reasons having to do
with English usage.
Today, we use "atheism" with two distinct (and significantly so)
meanings: (1) a philosophical stance, disbelief in the existence of
gods; and (2) a religion, Western humanistic materialism. This
distinction is important because there are other atheistic(1)
religions. The version of "atheism" which we hear about in Western
media is usually a conflation of the two, because nearly all the
prominent public atheists(1) belong to the atheist(2) religion. (Or
at least the obnoxious "militant" ones like Dawkins.) But there are
Unitarian atheists, for example, who do not practice W.H.M. -- and
their religious views are rarely aired in the public sphere (to the
extent that most people I know still haven't caught up with the late
nineteenth-century split in meaning of "Unitarian"). Likewise, one
can argue that at least some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, but
Buddhism is undoubtedly not materialistic.
Steve Hayes
Wollman) wrote:
>ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
>where the first noun can occur in the plural. We've discussed here
>that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
>gen.sg. in that slot, and British usage, IIRC, is "driving licence"
>(or is that "license", too -- I'm glad I speak a dialect that doesn't
>make that distinction).
I don't know about Britain, but in South Africa it's a "driving licence" --
"licence" is the noun and "license" the verb, rather like advice and advise,
practice and practise, prophecy and prophesy. The spelling is consistent, even
if the pronunciation isn't.
Peter Moylan
> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
> where the first noun can occur in the plural.
I've always known that as "driver's licence" - not plural, but possessive.
> We've discussed here
> that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
> gen.sg. in that slot,
Yes, I vaguely remember such discussions, but I don't remember the
nom.pl. one.
Mine says "Driver licence", which sounds completely wrong to me. I wish
I'd kept an old one so as to be able to tell when it changed from
"Driver's".
Richard Chambers
> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
> where the first noun can occur in the plural. We've discussed here
> that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
> gen.sg. in that slot, and British usage, IIRC, is "driving licence"
> (or is that "license", too -- I'm glad I speak a dialect that doesn't
> make that distinction).
It's easy. Use the "s" for a verb, the "c" for a noun.
practise (verb), practice (noun)
license licence
etc.
Because of the way it separates the noun from the verb, this is one of the
relatively rare cases where I think that BrE spelling is "better" than the
American version. Easy with a spot of practice. You could practise it
yourslf, and soon become proficient.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
James Hogg
> Garrett Wollman wrote
>
>> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun
>> compounds where the first noun can occur in the plural. We've
>> discussed here that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg.,
>> gen.pl., and gen.sg. in that slot, and British usage, IIRC, is
>> "driving licence" (or is that "license", too -- I'm glad I speak a
>> dialect that doesn't make that distinction).
>
> It's easy. Use the "s" for a verb, the "c" for a noun.
>
> practise (verb), practice (noun)
> license licence
> etc.
Are there any cetera?
I don't count advise/advice or devise/device because all varieties of
English make a distinction in spelling and pronunciation for them.
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Garrett Wollman wrote:
>
>> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
>> where the first noun can occur in the plural.
>
>I've always known that as "driver's licence" - not plural, but possessive.
>
>> We've discussed here
>> that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
>> gen.sg. in that slot,
>
>Yes, I vaguely remember such discussions, but I don't remember the
>nom.pl. one.
>
The nom.pl use seems odd. It would suggest that more than one driver is
licensed (authorised to drive) by a single licence, that is that there
is more than one name on the licence document.
>Mine says "Driver licence", which sounds completely wrong to me. I wish
>I'd kept an old one so as to be able to tell when it changed from
>"Driver's".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
John O'Flaherty
>John O'Flaherty filted:
>>
>>Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>>runs, approximately,
>>Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>>color.
>
>The Arizona Department of Transportation does that...they even have a preferred
>two-letter abbreviation, for it for use on drivers licenses....r
So, do they have an abbreviation for baldness, or for atheism?
--
John
Peter Moylan
regular.
Christopher A. Lee
Yes.
I hope this helps.
James Hogg
> James Hogg wrote:
>> Richard Chambers wrote:
>>> Garrett Wollman wrote
>>>
>>>> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
>>>> where the first noun can occur in the plural. We've discussed here
>>>> that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
>>>> gen.sg. in that slot, and British usage, IIRC, is "driving licence"
>>>> (or is that "license", too -- I'm glad I speak a dialect that doesn't
>>>> make that distinction).
>>> It's easy. Use the "s" for a verb, the "c" for a noun.
>>>
>>> practise (verb), practice (noun)
>>> license licence
>>> etc.
>> Are there any cetera?
>>
>> I don't count advise/advice or devise/device because all varieties of
>> English make a distinction in spelling and pronunciation for them.
>>
> Why not count them? It's one of the few examples where BrE is completely
> regular.
I didn't count them because Richard doesn't need to teach them to Americans.
--
James
James Hogg
The question is, does the CV on these licences stand for Calvinist or
Calvous?
--
James
Interesting Ian
news:khjnh5da4bhui1j25...@4ax.com...
> Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
> runs, approximately,
> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
> color.
No it isn't. It's transparently clear that atheism is a religion. Except
that if anything it's even more daft.
Christopher A. Lee
It's transparently clear that "Interesting Ian" is lying through his
teeth to troll for a reaction.
Richard Chambers
I thought I had found at least one cetera with "mortise/mortice".
Unfortunately, contrary to Peter's surmise, this is an irregular.
"Mortise" is used both as a verb and as a noun. "Mortice" is an
alternative spelling for both.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:27:31 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
>
>>Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a
>>religion?
>>
>>ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
>>Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
>
> I believe in AmE that is now "rendition".
No, with "transportation", the prisoners remained British prisoners.
I believe that "rendition" is technically "not my prisoner anymore;
not my problem/responsibility/fault". (Rendition is "extradition"
when the person is a suspect or convicted criminal and the rendition
is requested by the destination.)
What the Bush administration did was specifically "extraordinary
rendition", i.e., rendition not within the law. But Article 4,
Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State,
shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which
he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having
Jurisdiction of the Crime.
is known as the "rendition clause".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It's gotten to the point where the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |only place you can get work done is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |at home, because no one bugs you,
|and the best place to entertain
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |yourself is at work, because the
(650)857-7572 |Internet connections are faster.
| Scott Adams
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:27:31 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
>>
>>>Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a
>>>religion?
>>>
>>>ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
>>>Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
>>
>> I believe in AmE that is now "rendition".
>
>No, with "transportation", the prisoners remained British prisoners.
>I believe that "rendition" is technically "not my prisoner anymore;
>not my problem/responsibility/fault". (Rendition is "extradition"
>when the person is a suspect or convicted criminal and the rendition
>is requested by the destination.)
>
>What the Bush administration did was specifically "extraordinary
>rendition", i.e., rendition not within the law. But Article 4,
>Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
>
> A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
> Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State,
> shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which
> he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having
> Jurisdiction of the Crime.
>
>is known as the "rendition clause".
But until Bush & Co started doing it, I think very few people outside the US
were aware of that usage, and it made me think of old horses being sent to the
glue factory etc.
Christopher A. Lee
>Isn't it amazing that anencephalics can make it to adulthood and get
>on the Internet?
It's deliberate. He's trolled the atheist newsgroups before.
Mike Lyle
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 05:12:31 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
> (Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>
>> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
>> where the first noun can occur in the plural. We've discussed here
>> that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
>> gen.sg. in that slot, and British usage, IIRC, is "driving licence"
>> (or is that "license", too -- I'm glad I speak a dialect that doesn't
>> make that distinction).
>
> I don't know about Britain, but in South Africa it's a "driving
> licence" -- "licence" is the noun and "license" the verb, rather like
> advice and advise, practice and practise, prophecy and prophesy. The
> spelling is consistent, even if the pronunciation isn't.
N for "noun" comes before V for "verb" in the alphabet. Those who have
difficulty remembering this can always fall back on the mnemonic, "
'Licence' with a C is a noun and 'license' with an S is a verb."
In the same way, I find the rainbow an invaluable aide-memoire for the
line "Richard of York gave battle in vain." You see, quite by
coincidence, the colours of the rainbow are red, orange, yellow, green,
blue, indigo, and violet: these colour-words happen to begin with
exactly the same letters of the alphabet as do the words in the phrase,
and -for Heaven's sake! -in exactly the same order. This way you need
never forget who lost on Bosworth Field.
--
Mike.
Skitt
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> Steve Hayes writes:
>>>> Why would the Department of Transportation care whether you have a
>>>> religion?
>>>>
>>>> ObAUE: In my language that would be the Department of Transport.
>>>> Transportation is how they brought the English to Australia.
>>>
>>> I believe in AmE that is now "rendition".
>>
>> No, with "transportation", the prisoners remained British prisoners.
>> I believe that "rendition" is technically "not my prisoner anymore;
>> not my problem/responsibility/fault". (Rendition is "extradition"
>> when the person is a suspect or convicted criminal and the rendition
>> is requested by the destination.)
>>
>> What the Bush administration did was specifically "extraordinary
>> rendition", i.e., rendition not within the law. But Article 4,
>> Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
>>
>> A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
>> Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State,
>> shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which
>> he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having
>> Jurisdiction of the Crime.
>>
>> is known as the "rendition clause".
>
> But until Bush & Co started doing it, I think very few people outside
> the US were aware of that usage, and it made me think of old horses
> being sent to the glue factory etc.
Render onto Caesar ...
Man, that really stinks!
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/
Skitt
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
>> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
>> where the first noun can occur in the plural.
>
> I've always known that as "driver's licence" - not plural, but
> possessive.
>
>> We've discussed here
>> that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
>> gen.sg. in that slot,
>
> Yes, I vaguely remember such discussions, but I don't remember the
> nom.pl. one.
>
> Mine says "Driver licence", which sounds completely wrong to me. I
> wish I'd kept an old one so as to be able to tell when it changed from
> "Driver's".
California and Florida use "Driver License".
Adam Funk
> James Hogg wrote:
>> Richard Chambers wrote:
>>> It's easy. Use the "s" for a verb, the "c" for a noun.
>>>
>>> practise (verb), practice (noun)
>>> license licence
>>> etc.
>>
>> Are there any cetera?
>>
>> I don't count advise/advice or devise/device because all varieties of
>> English make a distinction in spelling and pronunciation for them.
>>
> Why not count them? It's one of the few examples where BrE is completely
> regular.
Yes. The pronunciations make it easy to use the right s/c for the
verbs and nouns of those pairs --- then you can use them as a key for
licens/ce, practis/ce, etc.
--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]
Hatunen
<use...@pigsinspace.co.uk> wrote:
>Interesting Ian wrote:
>> "John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
>> news:khjnh5da4bhui1j25...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:18:11 -0800 (PST), Peter Brooks
>>> <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Someone on usenet (can't remember who or where) has a sig line that
>>> runs, approximately,
>>> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
>>> color.
>>
>>
>> No it isn't.
>
>Yes it is.
>
>> It's transparently clear that atheism is a religion.
>
>No it is not - not by *any* definition of religion.
There's a metaphorical use of "religion" as in "His religion is
stamp collecting". That definition might fit some atheists who
take their athiesm very seriously, the village atheist sort, but
very few of the atheists I have met take it all that seriously.
In fact, the subject rarely comes up and I sometimes only realize
they're atheists when somthing triggers a need to mention it.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Bannister
How can disbelief be compared to belief? If you don't believe in
fairies, does that make you an adherent of some other religion? Are you
a member of what used to be called the Holy Office?
--
Rob Bannister
Tom Keske
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:hfhtf...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Tom Keske filted:
>>
>>
>>> An optimist sees the glass of poison as half full,
>>> and the pessimist sees it has as half empty.
>>
>>No wait, that is the other way around.
>>Oh, it does not matter. Nothing really matters.
>>It is like we are not really even here. I suppose
>>that in a way, that is reassuring.
>
> Have you been reading Dorothy Parker?...r
>
No, but I probably will, now for curiosity.
Just looked at a photograph- she reminds
me of my friend, Ruth.
Tom Keske
Ragnar
"Huge" <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote in message
news:7o6jbdF...@mid.individual.net...
> On 2009-12-07, Christopher A Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2009 14:29:26 GMT, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> It's deliberate. He's trolled the atheist newsgroups before.
>
>
I like to see these religious posts. It reminds me of what I've given up in
case I ever feel nostalgic for religion.
R.
Christopher A. Lee
Masochist.
Richard Chambers
> James Hogg wrote:
>> Richard Chambers wrote:
>>> Garrett Wollman wrote
>>>
>>>> ObAUE: "drivers license" is another one of those noun-noun compounds
>>>> where the first noun can occur in the plural. We've discussed here
>>>> that different jurisdictions use nom.pl., nom.sg., gen.pl., and
>>>> gen.sg. in that slot, and British usage, IIRC, is "driving licence"
>>>> (or is that "license", too -- I'm glad I speak a dialect that doesn't
>>>> make that distinction).
>>>
>>> It's easy. Use the "s" for a verb, the "c" for a noun.
>>>
>>> practise (verb), practice (noun)
>>> license licence
>>> etc.
>>
>> Are there any cetera?
>>
>> I don't count advise/advice or devise/device because all varieties of
>> English make a distinction in spelling and pronunciation for them.
>>
> Why not count them? It's one of the few examples where BrE is completely
> regular.
Not completely regular. I have noticed at least one exception, which I
bring to your notice. I believe that this word is irregular in AmE too.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
CDB
> In alt.usage.english Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> Only the superstitious have gods or goddesses.
>
>> And they project their nedd for them onto everybody else.
>
> You leave my donkey out of this! ;-)
>
Nonono, the donkey is "Eeyore". You're thinking of the bear.
Robert Bannister
I bet you thought some of us wouldn't notise though.
--
Rob Bannister
sdm_sax
wrote:
> "John O'Flaherty" <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
> > Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
> > color.
>
> No it isn't. It's transparently clear that atheism is a religion. Except
> that if anything it's even more daft.
So, you accept religion is daft?
We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
like the Biblical description.
Roland Hutchinson
My CV won't fit on my license.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Heather L.
And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
HL.
Peter Moylan
> sdm_sax wrote:
>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
>> clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
>> can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
>> like the Biblical description.
>
> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for an
interesting hobby?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
the Omrud
> Heather L. wrote:
>> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
>>> clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
>>> can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
>>> like the Biblical description.
>>
>> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
>> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
>
> Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for an
> interesting hobby?
Was he a member of that club for people who don't collect stamps?
What's it called? Ah, yes, the aphilatelists. Mind, it might be
important to know what type of stamps he doesn't collect - I think there
are factions.
--
David
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Heather L. wrote:
>> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
>>> clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
>>> can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
>>> like the Biblical description.
>>
>> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
>> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
>
>Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for an
>interesting hobby?
The religious are like people who imagine everybody collects stamps
and you have to force yourself not to.
David Taylor
Atheism is a rejection of the supernatural.
We must not confuse faith (belief without proof or evidence), with
morals and ethics - they are not the sole provice of theistic religions,
and too often, the reverse is the case.
Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
Perhaps the most unstable part of the world today is the bible lands.
"Oh Little Town of Bethlehem"...?
Atheism is not in my view a religion but it's a common misunderstanding
by believers that because athiists dont beleive in God, they don't
believe in anything.
Most atheists have a belief system, usually, Humanism - a belief that we
have one life, this one, and should strive to make it a good one, caring
and considerate towards others.
I was brought up as a Christian, as was my wife and our two sons.
I've long since renounced any beliefs in such things as the earth the
universe and everything being created is six days by a suernatural
being, a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden, original sin, the
resurrection, life after death etc etc.
I don't mind at all that people do believe in such things, but I think
many believers are very insecure in their faith or they wouldn't strive
to do geat harm to non-believers.
And you can be sure of one thing; no atheist is going to fly a plane at
400MPH into a tower block, killing thousands of people, in the fanciful
belief that his reward for this mrderous atrocity will be to live
forever in paradise.
No - you're safe with us!
It's a truism that 'good people do good things, bad people do bad
things, but to get good people to do bad things - that takes religion'.
Neither the bible nor the koran truly merit the term "good book" - both
are littered with invocations to violence, which have been used for
centuries and still are today, to justfity all kinds of misery and grief
fron child abuse to spousal abuse and doing harm to non-beleivers.
Yet believers wouyldn't have as much as a comma altered in these books.
America has the highest level of 'religiosity' in the developed world.
It also has among the highest levels of homicide, sexually transmitted
diseases, abortion, divorce, is awash with drugs and ponography,
imprisons a far higher proportion of its citizens and a poor human
rights record.
Is it just atheists that do all that stuff? I don't think so.
And where was God on 9/11?
All you need to lead a good life is a copy of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. It fits on one A4 page. In closing. Freedom of Thought,
Conscience and Relgion under the UDHR places non-theistic beleifs on an
equal footing to theistic beliefs.
The most peaceful countries in the world seem to be those which have
become post-religious societies. Those which are most troubled, seem to
be those in which religion has the upper hand.
Or so it seems to me.
I'm not trying to promote non-belief - I'm just saying that being an
atheist should not be confused with lack of belief in leading a moral
and ethical life.
Sent with goodwill to people of all faiths and nnoe.
David.
Nr Hull,
N.E Coast of England
CDB
double-Alpha-privative, and shall be doubly deprived of delivery.
True atelophobes know that only we may expect to be cancelled and
delivered: all others are bound straight for the Dead-Letter Office.
That's "Office" with an Omega, son.
the Omrud
That's O, which starts off Ooooh, which rhymes with Pool. Trouble.
--
David
Mike Page
> Heather L. wrote:
>> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
>>> clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
>>> can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
>>> like the Biblical description.
>> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
>> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
>
> Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for an
> interesting hobby?
>
At the danger of repeating a previous thread, there are quite a lot of
things that pass the duck test for religions without the need for a
deity. Many football supporters seem to behave in much the same way as
god-botherers of various stripes. They meet together once a week and
join in communal praise and condemnation. Singing occurs. Following the
pursuit involves considerable sacrifice of cash, personal convenience
and comfort. It tends to run in families. You are more likely to change
your spouse than your affiliation to your team, and so on.
--
Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.
Heather L.
> Heather L. wrote:
>> sdm_sax wrote:
>
>>> We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before.
>>> It clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious
>>> nuts who can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world
>>> isn't quite like the Biblical description.
>>
>> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard
>> to a religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it
>> never will.
>
> Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for
> an interesting hobby?
Poor example, though. 'Stamp collectors' don't get to make philately-centred
laws; interfere with medicine; control education; scam the stupid; or run
world-wide paedo rings. Someone who 'doesn't collect stamps' isn't gong to
be barred from certain types of office; hounded by their family; or chucked
out of school. Whence the comparison misfires. N'est-ce pas...?
HL.
R H Draney
Maybe a better analogy would be sports (=BrE "sport") fans, who can't seem to
grasp the notion that someone else might not *have* a favorite team in whatever
children's game is under discussion....r
--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Heather L. filted:
I'm afraid I'm the guilty party here.
I've been on alt.atheism since it started in 1991, and in its early
days I said something like "Some people have a religion, I don't. So
what? Some people collect stamps, I don't" and it got picked up.
There's even a guy who posts in various places who calls ninsely
nonstampcollector.
Jerry Friedman
> Peter Moylan wrote:
[atheism not a religion]
> > Last night I met somebody who doesn't collect stamps. How's that for
> > an interesting hobby?
>
> Poor example, though. 'Stamp collectors' don't get to make philately-centred
> laws; interfere with medicine; control education;
No, birdwatchers do that. In the classes I teach, anyway.
> scam the stupid;
Actually, I'll bet stamp collectors get to do that now and then.
> or run world-wide paedo rings.
...
He slyly inveigled her up to his flat...
--
Jerry Friedman
Heather L.
>
> I've been on alt.atheism since it started in 1991, and in its early
> days I said something like "Some people have a religion, I don't. So
> what? Some people collect stamps, I don't" and it got picked up.
> There's even a guy who posts in various places who calls ninsely
> nonstampcollector.
He does videos now! And they're *ace*...!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/wild_times_with_the_laughing_g.php#comments
HL.
Peter Moylan
> Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
> Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
> been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
> just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
They claim that it's the same god, but I've always doubted that. Why
would a single god have different, and sometimes incompatible, rules for
different branches of his club?
I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham were
the same person. There was too much personality change over time.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>David Taylor wrote:
>
>> Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
>> Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
>> been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
>> just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
>
>They claim that it's the same god, but I've always doubted that. Why
>would a single god have different, and sometimes incompatible, rules for
>different branches of his club?
>
>I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham were
>the same person. There was too much personality change over time.
Just evidence that they are beliefs which evolve.
franzi
Doctrines, rather than beliefs, I think.
People will criticize religions, when they should be criticizing men.
--
franzi
Heather L.
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:32:50 +1100, Peter Moylan<gro.nalyomp@retep>
>>>
>>> were the same person. There was too much personality change over
>>> time.
>>
>> Just evidence that they are beliefs which evolve.
>
> Doctrines, rather than beliefs, I think.
>
> People will criticize religions, when they should be criticizing men.
Great spew! I call 'dickhead religious apologist'...
HL.
Robert Bannister
They got me - I think on my third day in Australia. Once I realised I
had to barrack for a team whether I liked it or not, I asked for the
colours and chose two blue teams. Oh yes: two - back then, you had to
have a local state side and a Victorian team.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
But it's men who invent religions.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>>
>> Maybe a better analogy would be sports (=BrE "sport") fans, who can't seem to
>>grasp the notion that someone else might not *have* a favorite team in whatever
>> children's game is under discussion....r
>>
>
>They got me - I think on my third day in Australia. Once I realised I
>had to barrack for a team whether I liked it or not, I asked for the
>colours and chose two blue teams. Oh yes: two - back then, you had to
>have a local state side and a Victorian team.
It puts me in mind of a sequence in Mike Todd's version of "Around the World in
80 Days"...when Fogg and company arrive in San Francisco, there's a local
election going on, and a local loudmouth played by John Carradine demands to
know which of the candidates the travelers support...Fogg's explanation that
they're all foreigners just passing through does little to quell his
belligerence....r
David Taylor
True.
You either believe that God created man, or man created God.
Imagine that if there is a God and that their is a judgment day, and you
find that all your life you've been worshipping the wrong God. Boy is
the right one going to be seriously miffed!
Religions come and go - human beings are inherently superstitious.
Nowadays we talk of Greek "Mythology".
The Greeks didn't think it was myths.
Look at how many billions of dollars go into propping up the churches
and lining the pockets of TV evangelists. Imagine if Americans were
asked to give billions to build a temple like Mount Olympus and worship
Zeus.
But why not? No one can prove that Zeus and countless other Gods don't
exist. Imagine if George Bush had said "We pray to Zeus for the safe
return of our troops - Zeus Bless America". Logically, it's no more
ludicrous than his other utterances.
To believe in any supernatural being you have to first suspend
disbelief. I find it bizarre that otherwise rational people who seek
proof in every other are of their lives, yet have a deep and profound
belief in whatever God they worship.
If you went to the doctor and said "I have this special friend, you
can't see him, but he's there all the time - he's everwhere - he's in
this room with us now. I talk to him and seek his advice and he tells me
what I should do". The doctor would say you're psychotic.
However, if the doctor was American, and asked "What's the name of tyour
imaginary friend?" and you said "Jesus" he'd probably say "Oh that's
fine - I have the same friend - rejoice, you're perfectly normal".
Huh?
Just because millions of people believe this stuff doesn't give it any
more credance. And I don't think many people actually truly believe that
if they do everything in the life, they'll cheat death to become
immortal. They may wish it, but they surely don't beleive it.
If they really, truly, beleived that, then they wouldn't want to risk
doing a single thing wrong in the brief life which might jeopordise
their smooth passge into the hereafter. They'd behave in quite a
diffrent way from the rest of us. But they don't. they lie, cheat, kill
torture...
The Catholic faith in particular is deeply troubling - seeminly, you can
be a serial offender and seek repetitive forgiveness to wipe the slate
clean.
Look where it's got them - endemic worldwide peadophilia, systmatically
condoned and colluded with, right up to the Vatican and going on to this
day. Victims told they'll be excommunicated if they don't agree to a vow
of silence and forgive the perpetrators, who are then quietly moved on
to commit offence after offence for decades.
And the church, from the Pope down, has the nerve to lecture others on
morals! Any right-minded person would have reported such offences to the
police in an instant - not continue to try to justify and explain it away.
That powerful people in positions of trust, whose role in life is
supposedly to show moral guidance to others, should abuse that trust on
such a huge scale is a very seriously aggravating feature. Those who
colluded in this should be put on trial for aiding and abeting criminals.
Dire, and deserving only of utter contempt.
Just my take on things, having saved myself from having being
brainwashed into religion as a child, and eventually "seeing the light".
David,
Nr Hull,
N.E England.
James Hogg
> Nowadays we talk of Greek "Mythology".
>
> The Greeks didn't think it was myths.
Yes they did. That was the word they used.
--
James
franzi
--
franzi
graham
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:80asmk...@mid.individual.net...
Graham
Mike Lyle
"Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?"
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
They may have liked myths, but they preferred to kith the boys.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
It crossed my mind, but I couldn't think of a single one. It really does
seem to be men that start them and women that believe in them.
--
Rob Bannister
graham
R H Draney
>
>
>"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:80ddjc...@mid.individual.net...
>> graham wrote:
>>> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>> news:80asmk...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's a bit sweeping! Women have too!
>>
>> It crossed my mind, but I couldn't think of a single one. It really does
>> seem to be men that start them and women that believe in them.
>>
>For a start: the Shakers and the "xtian scientits"
And in part, Theosophy....r
James Hogg
And in one myth Oedipus preferred kith and kin.
--
James
Nick
> David Taylor wrote:
>
>> Relgions - particularly the three Abrahamic religions of Islam,
>> Chrisitianty and Judaism, (who worship the same God incidentally), have
>> been responsible down the ages for countless deaths and untold misery,
>> just as they are today, due to inter-religious conflict.
>
> They claim that it's the same god, but I've always doubted that. Why
> would a single god have different, and sometimes incompatible, rules for
> different branches of his club?
>
> I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham were
> the same person. There was too much personality change over time.
He doesn't. Each one of those is absolutely right and the other two are
completely wrong.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Armond Perretta
>
> I'm not even convinced that the god of Moses and the god of Abraham
Of course they weren't. No one lives _that_ long.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare
aquachimp
Just as work is for man and not man for work, surely religion is for
man rather than man being the servant of the ultimate, indiscriminate
Alpha-Bogeyman.
aquachimp
> sdm_sax wrote:
> > On 7 Dec, 14:08, "Interesting Ian" <spam.me2DEL...@ntlworld.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "John O'Flaherty" <quias...@yeeha.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> Calling atheism a kind of religion is like calling baldness a hair
> >>> color.
>
> >> No it isn't. It's transparently clear that atheism is a religion.
> >> Except that if anything it's even more daft.
>
> > So, you accept religion is daft?
>
> > We've done the wholoe thing about atheism being a religion before. It
> > clearly isn't. The only people that think it is are religious nuts who
> > can't seems to accept scientific findings that the world isn't quite
> > like the Biblical description.
>
> And the simple fact is that atheism is *an attitude held in regard to a
> religious issue*. That doesn't make it 'a religion', and it never will.
>
I have a couple of questions; The OP was also posted to alt.poetry,
yet for the life of me I can't say I found it all that poetic, so I'm
wondering did anyone else? As for alt.deposit, I'm even more baffled.
But what I'm wondering about is what I see as the cross over in
meanings between theism and religion if all theism really means is a
belief in god(s).
At what point are they separate?
I do realise that the "a" in atheism denotes without-theism {so,
without a belief in god(s)}
franzi
wrote:
But the description of this Alpha-Bogeyman is man's own creation.
There is a problem of circularity here. Man describes something he
doesn't like, then declares he won't believe in it. It's not very
convincing.
--
franzi
franzi
wrote:
That would be agnosticism or indifference. I consider that atheism
denotes withoutgod-ism, a belief in the absence of gods.
--
franzi
erilar
<4f9db296-5ebd-43e4...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
franzi <et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:
That's how I've always understood them. It seems to me that atheists
are incredibly arrogant in totally denying the existence of gods. Since
they can't prove there are NO gods any more than assorted religions can
prove absolutely that there ARE gods, atheism strikes me as just as
faith-based as any religion.
I'm neutral, aka agnostic, personally. I don't have either that much
faith or that much arrogance 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Christopher A. Lee
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article
><4f9db296-5ebd-43e4...@t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> franzi <et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 21, 7:27 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > I do realise that the "a" in atheism denotes without-theism {so,
>> > without a belief in god(s)}
>>
>> That would be agnosticism or indifference. I consider that atheism
>> denotes withoutgod-ism, a belief in the absence of gods.
>
>That's how I've always understood them. It seems to me that atheists
>are incredibly arrogant in totally denying the existence of gods. Since
>they can't prove there are NO gods any more than assorted religions can
>prove absolutely that there ARE gods, atheism strikes me as just as
>faith-based as any religion.
Why do these liars imagine they get to tell atheists what it means to
be atheist?
There is nothing faith-based about atheism so why lie about that?
We're people who aren't theist, and that's all.
For those atheists who say there's no god it's a falsifiable
conclusion based on the complete lack of evidence for them.
Which takes no faith whatsoever.
>I'm neutral, aka agnostic, personally. I don't have either that much
>faith or that much arrogance 8-)
You're not neutral - you grant undeserved credence to one particular
baseless claim that you don't to all the others.
What faith and what arrogance are you lying about?
Christopher A. Lee
<et.in.arca...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I do realise that the "a" in atheism denotes without-theism {so,
>> without a belief in god(s)}
Correct.
>That would be agnosticism or indifference. I consider that atheism
>denotes withoutgod-ism, a belief in the absence of gods.
No. Atheism is about theism and its absence.
Agnosticism is about knowledge and its absence - about something
utterly irrelevant outside the theist's religion.
The two are orthogonal.
You can be either, neither or both.
johnbee
< if George Bush had said "We pray to Zeus for the safe
return of our troops - Zeus Bless America". Logically, it's no more
ludicrous than his other utterances. >
Don't be daft. It might be ludicrous to you mate but it is votes
to him. He is a politician, and what's more, he was
elected to the world's top elected job. If he had said 'Do not pray
for our troops it is a waste of time and a bit stupid, just hope that
not too many of them get harmed' that would have been ludicrous.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> I have a couple of questions; The OP was also posted to alt.poetry,
> yet for the life of me I can't say I found it all that poetic, so I'm
> wondering did anyone else? As for alt.deposit, I'm even more baffled.
No idea, squire.
>
> But what I'm wondering about is what I see as the cross over in
> meanings between theism and religion if all theism really means is a
> belief in god(s).
>
> At what point are they separate?
I don't believe I've ever thought about this before, and it's
interesting. My first thought is that one could believe in a god, but
not belong to a religion if one didn't actually perform any actions in
connection with the god. What my second thought may be, I don't know
yet: perhaps I need somebody to tell me what I think.
--
Mike.
[...]
franzi
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:42:12 -0700 (PDT), franzi
>
> >> I do realise that the "a" in atheism denotes without-theism {so,
> >> without a belief in god(s)}
>
> Correct.
>
> >That would be agnosticism or indifference. I consider that atheism
> >denotes withoutgod-ism, a belief in the absence of gods.
>
> No. Atheism is about theism and its absence.
You'll need to explain. Theism's absence? Theism isn't absent. It's
present. You only have to look around you, and prick up your ears if
that will help, to notice that.
>
> Agnosticism is about knowledge and its absence - about something
> utterly irrelevant outside the theist's religion.
Agnosticism is a philosophical policy. It is relevant to the thinking
man's religion.
>
> The two are orthogonal.
They are both angles on the world, and they are both right?
>
> You can be either, neither or both.
I'll be that.
--
franzi