Happy New Year 2010
J
you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Wishing all a very happy, healthy New Year
Olrik
> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
would make us very happy for 2010.
So?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
> --
> J Young
>
> Wishing all a very happy, healthy New Year
Egualmente!
coaste...@yahoo.com
What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Olrik
>>
>>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>>> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
>> would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>> So?
>
> Churlish, Olrik.
I was very polite.
Olrik
>>
>>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>>> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
>> would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>> So?
>
> What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
> nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
You go ahead :
Uncle Vic
> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
It will if you stop trolling the newsgroups.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Ray Fischer
>I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
Thank you! And may 2010 be one of the worst years of your life.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
duke
It makes me a lot happy hanging with you atheist wannabes.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>>you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>>prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
>Thank you! And may 2010 be one of the worst years of your life.
Well put for an atheist wannabe.
Boo Radley
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:3dffi3....@news.alt.net...
LC
Sociopathic nutcase "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:3dffi3....@news.alt.net...
>I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
Can't put it any more succintly than this:
"J, when a jackass like you wishes everybody a Merry xmas or Happy
Chanukah, we all know that you are just being a jackass. That your
salutations are spurious and fraught with ill intent is clearly
evidenced in this post of yours. When the target audience of your
specious greetings is made up of people you've time and again
demonstrated hatred of you can't be anymore transpicuous."
From: "L.Roberts" <ozzca...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID:
<08f6a17a-5fd0-42e5...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
Here's to wishing that someway, somehow you find a life in 2010, J<unkie>.
Surprise us!
Syd M.
> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
What would make us happy is you very far from this group.
PDW
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:35:16 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
> >> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> >> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> >> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
> >
> >If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
> >would make us very happy for 2010.
> >
> >So?
>
> It makes me a lot happy hanging with you atheist wannabes.
There is nothing "wannabe" about non-theism.
Theism, especially the self-contradictory sort like Puke presents is the
"wannabe" position, wanting eternal life when they are already bored
with this one.
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2009 19:14:42 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
> >>I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> >>you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> >>prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
> >
> >Thank you! And may 2010 be one of the worst years of your life.
>
> Well put for an atheist wannabe.
No one has to "wannabe" an athiest. All it takes is a little common
sense.
Theists actually deny the very existences of most gods but get upset
when sensible people merely deny belief in them.
P. Schmeckelstein
Oy... yeah, mazel tov! May your new year be profitable, and many happy
returns on your mutual fund investments and T-bills. L'Chaim!
Rabbi Pinky Schmeckelstein
USENET IS UNCENSORED
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/E-Gefilte.gif
http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/E-FoodFish.gif
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>J <Jvis...@live.com> wrote:
>>>I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>>>you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>>>prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>>Thank you! And may 2010 be one of the worst years of your life.
>
>Well put for an atheist wannabe.
Can you make a New Year's resolution to be moral and honest for
next year?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
NefeshBarYohai
> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
> --
> J Young
>
> Wishing all a very happy, healthy New Year
You a little late, new years was on the 19th of September.
The Chief Instigator
> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
You could contribute an effort to achieve that by not posting for 365 days.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 1 (December 30)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, December 31 at Rockford, 7:05
The Chief Instigator
If we only had a spacecraft to be launched to Rigil Kentaurus (Alpha
Centauri to the non-astro population)...at solar system escape velocity,
it'd be about seven miles a second, which means he'd be getting a little
over 600,000 miles a day, which would get him out there in a little short of
20,000 years, give or take a percent.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Le 2009-12-31 13:39, iconocl...@yahoo.com a écrit :
>
> > On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> >>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> >>> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
> >> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
> >> would make us very happy for 2010.
>
> >> So?
>
> > What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
> > nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>
> You go ahead :
Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
religion. Just like revealed religion It is blind faith system, not
one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
be too finite and limited to get there.
That took four minutes.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Precisely the same can be said about atheists. But not about agnostics.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Well said, Nefesh! But not very democratic of you. You Jewish guys are
only 2.5% of us.
walksalone
news:ee5bd337-7992-44f2...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 31, 1:54锟絧m, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2009-12-31 13:39, iconocl...@yahoo.com a 锟絚rit :
>>
>> > On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> 锟絯rote:
>> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a 锟絚rit :
>>
>> >>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every
>> >>> one
> of
>> >>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy,
>> >>> and prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> >> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism.
>> >> That would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>> >> So?
>>
>> > What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There
>> > is nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>>
>> You go ahead :
>
> Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
& of course you are privey to this hidden knowledge, or rather, yopu're
not. It requires no faith. It does however require theists who lack the
decency & fail to m,ake fools of themselves in public.
> religion. Just like revealed religion It is blind faith system, not
Not at all, you're misuse of the word religion not withstanding. Religious
faith rarely is subject to change based on evidence. Atheism, by its verfy
nature, lacks that feature. If a god shows up, I will acknowledge it as a
god. Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods of the
desert, is another matter.
> one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
It is indeed based on knowledge. The knowledge that all gods & the claims
for them can not be true, but they can all be false. The knowledge that
there is no need of gods outside the weak minded, whether natural or
induced from childhood by abusive parents or an abusive society.
> revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
Since when is atheism a scientific discipline. Or are you trying out the
stabndard [for xians] misuse of the English language.
> Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
No, it does not. It pre-supposes a deity & says we can not know anything
about that deity.
> and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
Then why is it even existant? It starts out with a failed hypothosis [the
assumed deity, brand immaterial], & then declares postulates for that
failed hypothosis. That is not even cl;ose to beiong scientific.
> it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> be too finite and limited to get there.
It's none of the above, but you may never be man enough to accept that.
> That took four minutes.
You wasted four minutes & failed to support your position.
walksalone who suspects he may be familiar with the above poster. If so,
he can use more words to say nothing than GW Bush ever could.
Religions are conclusions for which the
facts of nature supply no major premises.
Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works(1912)
>
Olrik
>>
>>>>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>>>>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>>>>> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>>>> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
>>>> would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>>>> So?
>>
>>> What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
>>> nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>>
>> You go ahead :
>
> Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> religion.
> Just like revealed religion It is blind faith system, not
> one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
> revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
> and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
> it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> That took four minutes.
Sure, it's the standard "holier-than-thou" agnostic screed. That
discourse is a failure because it does not address faith, it addresses
knowledge.
Agnostics zealots are generally cowards.
For example : do you believe in "god"?
A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. And remember, the question is *not*
about knowledge. We'll see where this will go.
Olrik
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:ee5bd337-7992-44f2...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 1:54 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:39, iconocl...@yahoo.com a écrit :
>
> >> > On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a écrit :
>
> >> >>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every
> >> >>> one
> > of
> >> >>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy,
> >> >>> and prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
> >> >> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism.
> >> >> That would make us very happy for 2010.
>
> >> >> So?
>
> >> > What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There
> >> > is nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>
> >> You go ahead :
Okay. Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
religion. Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
be too finite and limited to get there.
That took four minutes.
>
> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed religion.
Atheism requires a leap of faith because we can not rule out the
existence of God. To be an atheist one must accept on faith that God
doesn't exist even though that is unknowable.
>
Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not one based
on knowledge.
> Not at all, you're misuse of the word religion not withstanding. Religious
> faith rarely is subject to change based on evidence. Atheism, by its verfy
> nature, lacks that feature. If a god shows up, I will acknowledge it as a
> god.
Thank you for admitting that until God shows up you will take on faith
the position that he/she/it doesn't exist.
Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods of the
> desert, is another matter.
That's not the question we're addressing.
> It is indeed based on knowledge. The knowledge that all gods & the claims
> for them can not be true, but they can all be false. The knowledge that
> there is no need of gods outside the weak minded, whether natural or
> induced from childhood by abusive parents or an abusive society.
>
> > Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
> Since when is atheism a scientific discipline.
It isn't. I neither said nor implied that.
Or are you trying out the
> stabndard [for xians] misuse of the English language.
I'm actually using the language precisely. Perhaps you don't
understand.
> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method.
>
> No, it does not. It pre-supposes a deity & says we can not know anything
> about that deity.
Definitely not. You confuse it with Deism. Agnosticism is quite the
opposite. It pre-supposes nothing whatever. It relies exclusively on
what we humans know. We don't know that God exists. By the same token
we can not prove the non-existence of God.
>> Therefore it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> > be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> Then why is it even existant?
You are saying that, not I. I admit that I do not and perhaps even
can not know whether or not God exists.
It starts out with a failed hypothosis [the
> assumed deity, brand immaterial], & then declares postulates for that
> failed hypothosis. That is not even cl;ose to beiong scientific.
The religionists assume a deitiy exists. The athiests assume no deity
exists. I take neither of those positions. I admit that I do not know
but will be willing to follow actual human knowledge wherever it takes
me. Hence the respect for the scientific method.
> It's none of the above, but you may never be man enough to accept that.
I accept what I know. When I get to the outer limits of that I suspend
judgment as simple intellectual honest requires any honest man to do.
You didn't understand my argument.
>
> > That took four minutes.
>
> You wasted four minutes & failed to support your position.
You didn't understand the argument. That's a shame as it is an
elementary classic.
> walksalone who suspects he may be familiar with the above poster. If so,
> he can use more words to say nothing than GW Bush ever could.
I have not used many words here.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Le 2009-12-31 20:06, iconocl...@yahoo.com a écrit :
>
>
>
> > On Dec 31, 1:54 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> >>>>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> >>>>> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
> >>>> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
> >>>> would make us very happy for 2010.
>
> >>>> So?
>
> >>> What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
> >>> nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>
> >> You go ahead :
>
> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> > religion.
> > one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
> > revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
> > and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
> > it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> > be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> > That took four minutes.
>
> Sure, it's the standard "holier-than-thou" agnostic screed. That
> discourse is a failure because it does not address faith, it addresses
> knowledge.
Read it again. It addresses both faith and knowledge.
> Agnostics zealots are generally cowards.
On the contrary, they face the consequences of their human
limitations..
> For example : do you believe in "god"?
No, as I have no evidence of its existence.
> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
You got it.
And remember, the question is *not*
> about knowledge.
Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
We'll see where this will go.
We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
they suspend judgment.
>
> Olrik
hypa...@comcast.net
Considering that this newsgroup on atheism has been around
for almost 20 years, I'd say you are wrong. I'd also say that as
far as atheism is concerned, you are a total ignoramus and
probably a bigot, as well.
walksalone
news:0e61ac03-3376-490d...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 31 2009, 8:37�pm, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:ee5bd337-79
> 92-44f2-9971...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Dec 31, 1:54�pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:39, iconocl...@yahoo.com a �crit :
>>
>> >> > On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> �wrote:
>> >> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
snip
>> >> You go ahead :
>
> Okay. Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> religion. Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
> one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
> revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
> and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
> it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> That took four minutes.
>>
>> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
>> > relig
> ion.
>
> Atheism requires a leap of faith because we can not rule out the
> existence of God. To be an atheist one must accept on faith that God
> doesn't exist even though that is unknowable.
What is known, is no god fits the requirements of its followers, and in
fact, frequently in a diametrically opposed to the claims made on his
behalf. As an example, the revealed gods of the desert cannot exist as
claimed by the followers. The primary in original god �l was fairly benign,
and those replaced him were not. The Hebrew Bible indicates a very vicious
self-centered egotistic god who will not accept his chosen people
worshiping any other deity. His so-called son, who feels every Messiah test
and requirement given by the Hebrew Bible, is in the same category. Unless
of course, you have never read the Greek Testaments. And if you haven't, do
not even qualified to speak on the subject. And then we have the last and
most violent of all, the replacement for Yahweh, commonly referred to as
Allah.
In those particular issues, as well as a multitude of other gods, it can be
shown that they do not exist as described. Therefore, there is no sense in
even considering the question. After all, I'm certain you're not concerned
whether or not any of the following gods are readily available for worship.
Ai Tojon
Akongo
Allah
Amma
Amun
Aramazd
Arebati
Awonawilona
Baiame
Brahm?
Bulaing
Buluga
Bumba
Cghene
Chnum
El
Elohim
Enki
�ros
Fidi Mukullu
Hira ?yagarbha
Huiracocha
Hunab Ku
Imra
Isten ( 2)
Julunggul
Kaia
Ka Tyeleo
Koyote
Kucumatz
Kun-tu-bzan-po
Kwoth
Lairna
Leza
Lisa
Lowalangi
Mahatala
Makemake
Moma
Mula Djadi
Nareau
Niamye
N�-gua
Ori?a Nla
Pemba
Ptah
Quat
Quetzalcoatl
Rigenmucha
Sirao
Somtus
Tangaroa
Teharonhiawagon
Tiki
Tirawa
Tva??ar
Ulllvelinqangi
Ungud
Varul?a
Viii and Ve
Wakonda
Yehl
Yama
Zeroes mate
Ammit
Ast? Vid?tu
Charontes
Culsu
Elel
Ke'ets
Sirens
Sphinx
Tuchulcha
Vanth
A?�ma Da?va
Ahriman
Asag
Asasel
Asmodaios
A�i Dahaka
Bolla
Cherufe
Drug
Ergame
Gandarewa
Guta
Harpies
Herensugue
Imdugud
Incubus
Inguma
Iya
Kaia
Kalevanpojat
K�res
Kingu
Kulshedra
Lamia
Lilith
Lilitu
Mahr
Mazzikin
P?y
Psezpolnica
Puck
R?hu
Rak?as
Reahu
Sebettu
Strigae
Succubus
Tawiskaron
Udu(g)
V?dt?js
Vucub-Caquix
Demon-slayers
Acala
Bh?tad?mara
C?mund?
Dharmap?la
Hayagr?va
Heruka
Ihi
Indra
Krodhadevat?s
L� Dong-bin
Mahik??
Michael
Mon
Narasiri?ha
Nusku
Ogma
Perkunas
R?ma
�akra�
Tang
Thor
Ti??riya
Var?ha
Vi??u
Zhong-Kui
Zocho
Devils, infernal beings
Aatxe
Abaddon
Ammit
Ast? Vid?tu
Babi
Bali
Beelzebub
Behemoth
Belial
Beng
Dabog
Da?vas
Djall
bDud
Fomeus
Galla
Gong Gong�
Hiisi
Iblis
Ke�lets
Lucifer
Mammon
Marchocias
Mephistopheles
Pan
�aitan
Samael
Satan
Velnias
and those gods, recognized by various portions of humanity, are simply a
scratch on the surface of potential gods to be recognized and worried over
by agnostics. But not my atheist.
> Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not one based
> on knowledge.
>
>> Not at all, you're misuse of the word religion not withstanding.
>> �Relig
> ious
>> faith rarely is subject to change based on evidence. �Atheism, by its
>> v
> erfy
>> nature, lacks that feature. �If a god shows up, I will acknowledge it
>> a
> s a
>> god.
>
> Thank you for admitting that until God shows up you will take on faith
> the position that he/she/it doesn't exist.
There is a large difference between taking something on faith based on
evidence, such as the sun continuing to rise in the east according to
tradition, and a artsy fartsy god worshiper in disguise. You see, you
cannot even use the word of faith correctly.
> �Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods of the
>> desert, is another matter.
>
> That's not the question we're addressing.
But it is germane to the conversation. Would you willingly believe in an
evil god if you follow the revealed gods of the desert, you do. And that's
according to their history. Recorded history, destroyed temples, scorched
cities, and other evidence of violence and mayhem done in the name of god.
>> It is indeed based on knowledge. �The knowledge that all gods & the
>> claims
>> for them can not be true, but they can all be false. �The knowledge
>> that
>> there is no need of gods outside the weak minded, whether natural or
>> induced from childhood by abusive parents or an abusive society.
>>
>> > Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of revealed religion
>> > and th
> e opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
>> Since when is atheism a scientific discipline.
>
> It isn't. I neither said nor implied that.
You indicated that it should have a scientific spirit which would indicate
a scientific discipline.
> �Or are you trying out the
>> stabndard [for xians] misuse of the English language.
>
> I'm actually using the language precisely. Perhaps you don't
> understand.
I do, and I recognized the old saying coming true again. If you can't
dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullishit. It's a
rather standard routine for the razzle-dazzle crowd. Pretending that words
only have certain limited definitions is the favorite routine for those
that really have nothing to offer.
>> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses
>> > any an
> d all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method.
>>
>> No, it does not. �It pre-supposes a deity & says we can not know
>> anything
>> about that deity.
>
> Definitely not. You confuse it with Deism. Agnosticism is quite the
No, I do not. Dieism is quite specific, and is in reality the only
unfalsifiable god known to humanity. And yet, given the parameters of that
deity, there is no reason to even concern yourself with trying to
understand or admit or deny that he exists. Therefore, there is no reason
to believe in him.
> opposite. It pre-supposes nothing whatever. It relies exclusively on
If they did not presuppose anything, and the question of the gods existence
or part about that god would be moot and not worth the skull sweat
agnostics claim to devote to the question. Therefore, as a simple
deduction, a deity concept of some sort is required to justify agnosticism.
Of course, if you are playing the look at me I'm intellectually superior to
everyone else card, then it really doesn't matter what position you take.
> what we humans know. We don't know that God exists. By the same token
> we can not prove the non-existence of God.
Unless there are claims made for those gods they can be examined and
qualified. Such is the case with the revealed gods of the desert. And they
are written indicates they are failures and therefore nonexistent or
unworthy of worship. Either way, there's no reason to believe in them. At
least, not actively. Of course if you're afraid of death and no longer
existing, it might be to your benefit to believe in them.
>>> Therefore it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more
>>> courageous
>> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove
>> > to be too finite and limited to get there.
>>
>> Then why is it even existant?
> You are saying that, not I. I admit that I do not and perhaps even
That was my question, one you have not answered. Why is the exotic position
assumed to be ethical or courageous when in fact, it is neither.
> can not know whether or not God exists.
In this particular case we can. By your capitalization of the word god you
indicate that you follow one of the revealed gods of the desert. Either
actively, or by custom. Why, only you can answer to yourself.
> �It starts out with a failed hypothosis [the
>> assumed deity, brand immaterial], & then declares postulates for that
>> failed hypothosis. �That is not even cl;ose to beiong scientific.
>
> The religionists assume a deitiy exists. The athiests assume no deity
> exists. I take neither of those positions. I admit that I do not know
But you do, you just not on enough with yourself to admit that. If you took
neither position, the question would be immaterial and unimportant to you.
But honestly you fire yourself with great importance and therefore, like a
person I'm acquainted with which the pen name you are using, pretend you
are intimately superior to others due to your belief. You're not, nor am I.
Your position is ethically bankrupt. Are you concerned about Red Cap? If
not why not? Are you concerned about Jenni Greentooth? Again, why not. If
these are not concerned with yours, then your position of being an agnostic
is phony and just so much posturing. It may feel good for you, but it's
irritating to those that are done the research.
> but will be willing to follow actual human knowledge wherever it takes
> me. Hence the respect for the scientific method.
No, you're not going to follow actual human knowledge wherever it might
take you. If you were, you would not be an agnostic or a theist. But, the
more likely majority of the atheist community, apathetic to claims of the
uninformed.
>> It's none of the above, but you may never be man enough to accept
>> that.
>
> I accept what I know. When I get to the outer limits of that I suspend
No you don't, because you would yourself by not doing the research
necessary to come to a basic understanding of the question of deity and its
role in human society. A role that is steadily decreasing and eroding
except in the poverty-stricken areas of the Middle East.
> judgment as simple intellectual honest requires any honest man to do.
Then you need to look up those definitions. Either that or do the research
necessary to come to a conclusion based on actual verifiable information.
Of course you will not do this, because that would rattle your cage and you
would no longer be intellectually superior to anyone in your own eyes. And
if you are who I think you are, that would never do.
> You didn't understand my argument.
>>
>> > That took four minutes.
>>
>> You wasted four minutes & failed to support your position.
>
> You didn't understand the argument. That's a shame as it is an
> elementary classic.
It was elementary, and easily understood. The shame is that you thought it
was an argument worth paying attention to.
>> walksalone who suspects he may be familiar with the above poster. �If
>> s
> o,
>> he can use more words to say nothing than GW Bush ever could.
>
> I have not used many words here.
Verbosity is not limited to quantity, it can also be a qualifier for
quality.
walksalone who strongly suspects that he's quite familiar with this
intellectually bankrupt poster. But I could be wrong, the style indicated
99.99^999999999 percent probability that I do in fact know him from the
Baptist news group. If this is the case, then we might as well dig in for a
round of a repetitious claims made on behalf of a bankrupt position where
the gods are concerned. But that's all right, and his group has survived
his likes before, and still as far as that goes. The difference between him
and Duke and his ilk is very simple, this one is slightly better educated.
Not well informed, educated.
What is it the Bible teaches us?�rapine, cruelty, and
murder. What is it the Testament teaches us?�to believe
that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman
engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery
is called faith.
Thomas Paine
hypa...@comcast.net
> On 31 Dec 2009 19:14:42 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> >>you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> >>prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
> >Thank you! And may 2010 be one of the worst years of your life.
>
> Well put for an atheist wannabe.
>
calls us, in an attempt to upset us. It never works. But,
he thinks that it draws attention away from his own
hypocrisy. According to Duke's religion, he is going to
his hell for being a hypocrite and a liar. I doubt that even
a deathbed confession will save him now. The fact that
we atheists don't believe in his nonsense won't help him,
since he does believe in it. He knows he's doomed.
Sanity's Little Helper
> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
Why? Are you terminally ill?
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
"Christian" (n). A person who views insulting non-Christians as a sacred
duity, and any response as persecution
Not authentic without this signature.
duke
>In article <gqupj5h1iub59trmn...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:35:16 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
>> >> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>> >> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>> >> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>> >
>> >If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
>> >would make us very happy for 2010.
>> >
>> >So?
>>
>> It makes me a lot happy hanging with you atheist wannabes.
>
>There is nothing "wannabe" about non-theism.
Yes, yes there is. Atheism has no basis for belief other than the desire to say
no to all the evidence. That makes you a wannabe.
>Theism, especially the self-contradictory sort like Puke presents is the
>"wannabe" position, wanting eternal life when they are already bored
>with this one.
The only alternative is an eternity in the flames of hell. Your choice.
Pink Freud
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f8512cf-b2de-411a...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...>> Le 2009-12-31 20:06, iconocl...@yahoo.com a �crit :>> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:39, iconocl...@yahoo.com a �crit :>> >>>> Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
Then you're an atheist, by many folks' understanding of the word.
I'm sure you can find a definition of atheism that says "believes there is
no god(s)", and I can find just as many defining atheism as "does not
believe in god(s)". The game can get pretty tiresome, especially when played
by somebody who is apparently also agnostic. Atheism and agnosticism are not
mutually exclusive.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Dec 31 2009, 1:39�pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
><coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 1:35�pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
>>
>> > > I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>> > > you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>> > > prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> > If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
>> > would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>> > So?
>>
>> What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
>> nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>
>Considering that this newsgroup on atheism has been around
>for almost 20 years, I'd say you are wrong. I'd also say that as
>far as atheism is concerned, you are a total ignoramus and
>probably a bigot, as well.
And some of us have been members all that time. It was set up by
atheists for atheists to discuss atheist issues. Of which there are
plenty due to living in a predominantly theist society.
And in spite of what aggressively stupid theist pychopaths imagine,
there is no theism vs atheism debate - we're already atheists so there
is nothing to discuss. Their behaviour towards us is however
symptomatic of the issues atheists face.
Trance Gemini
wrote:
>
> Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
> position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
>
> We'll see where this will go.
>
> We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
> their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
> what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
> opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
> stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
> known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
> they suspend judgment.
You are equivocating between the terms "faith" and "belief" and they
are not the same.
Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
is no reason to believe in god(s).
In addition, you don't understand what an agnostic is or what
statement is being made by agnosticism.
Agnosticism states that the existence of gods is unknown or
unknowable.
There is nothing in a statement of agnosticism that contradicts
atheism and vice versa.
You might want to do some reading and educate yourself before you come
onto an atheist group spouting this type of nonsense.
There are many threads on this topic archived in this group from which
you could learn a lot.
Trance Gemini
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:27 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
<snipped>
> >There is nothing "wannabe" about non-theism.
>
> Yes, yes there is. Atheism has no basis for belief other than the desire to say
> no to all the evidence. That makes you a wannabe.
Except that it's 2010 and, Gee, we're still waiting to see all that
evidence....
Christopher A. Lee
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 3:34�am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
>> position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
>>
>> We'll see where this will go.
>>
>> We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
>> their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
>> what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
>> opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
>> stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
>> known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
>> they suspend judgment.
>
>You are equivocating between the terms "faith" and "belief" and they
>are not the same.
>
>Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
>is no reason to believe in god(s).
I've never understood why believers and agnostics imagine that the
real world method of dealing with unsupported claims about something
that isn't even necessary, is to assume the opposite until evidence is
forthcoming.
This is not a belief, faith, or any of the other things they project
because they can't see beyond the ends of their noses.
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Dec 31 2009, 8:37�pm, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:ee5bd337-7992-44f2...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 31, 1:54�pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:39, iconocl...@yahoo.com a �crit :
>>
>> >> > On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> �wrote:
>> >> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
>>
>> >> >>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every
>> >> >>> one
>> > �of
>> >> >>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy,
>> >> >>> and prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> >> >> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism.
>> >> >> That would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>> >> >> So?
>>
>> >> > What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There
>> >> > is nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>>
>> >> You go ahead :
>
>Okay. Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
>religion.
What specific leap does it require?
>Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
>one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
>revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
You use words that are English, but they don't make any sense. Why does
it take 'blind faith' not to believe in things that have no evidence for
them. Does it take blind faith for you not to believe in Tinkerbell?
>Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
>and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
>it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
>and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
>be too finite and limited to get there.
Agnosticism and atheism are statements about two different questions.
They are not mutually exclusive.
>That took four minutes.
And you got a failing grade on a critical thinking mid-term.
>> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed religion.
>
>Atheism requires a leap of faith because we can not rule out the
>existence of God. To be an atheist one must accept on faith that God
>doesn't exist even though that is unknowable.
Atheists don't rule out the existence of gods. Christians rule out all
gods but the Triune God and they don't think about that. Atheists do not
have to accept on faith that God does not exist. You need to study more
for the final. Your quiz answers here show a complete lack of knowledge
of the material.
>Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not one based
>on knowledge.
Since your prior statements were erroneous, your conclusion cannot be
accepted.
>> Not at all, you're misuse of the word religion not withstanding. �Religious
>> faith rarely is subject to change based on evidence. �Atheism, by its verfy
>> nature, lacks that feature. �If a god shows up, I will acknowledge it as a
>> god.
>
>Thank you for admitting that until God shows up you will take on faith
>the position that he/she/it doesn't exist.
Not faith, mere lack thereof.
>>�Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods of the
>> desert, is another matter.
>
>That's not the question we're addressing.
I'm not sure you are addressing any questions.
>> It is indeed based on knowledge. �The knowledge that all gods & the claims
>> for them can not be true, but they can all be false. �The knowledge that
>> there is no need of gods outside the weak minded, whether natural or
>> induced from childhood by abusive parents or an abusive society.
>>
>> > Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
>> Since when is atheism a scientific discipline.
>
>It isn't. I neither said nor implied that.
>
>�Or are you trying out the
>> stabndard [for xians] misuse of the English language.
>
>I'm actually using the language precisely. Perhaps you don't
>understand.
No, you have a profound misunderstanding of what atheism is and it has
completely undermined all of your other arguments.
>> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method.
>>
>> No, it does not. �It pre-supposes a deity & says we can not know anything
>> about that deity.
>
>Definitely not. You confuse it with Deism. Agnosticism is quite the
>opposite. It pre-supposes nothing whatever. It relies exclusively on
>what we humans know. We don't know that God exists. By the same token
>we can not prove the non-existence of God.
That depends on what you are trying to prove. Can we prove that
attributes of the Triune God that is worshipped by Christians are not
consistent? Sure. Can we prove that all gods do not exist? No. I cannot
prove that Loki does not exist, either. So what?
Christianity demands a form of agnosticism, but Christians rarely
describe themselves as agnostic. Atheists have no problem at all being
agnostic.
>>> Therefore it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
>> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
>> > be too finite and limited to get there.
>>
>> Then why is it even existant?
>
>You are saying that, not I. I admit that I do not and perhaps even
>can not know whether or not God exists.
Really?
>>�It starts out with a failed hypothosis [the
>> assumed deity, brand immaterial], & then declares postulates for that
>> failed hypothosis. �That is not even cl;ose to beiong scientific.
>
>The religionists assume a deitiy exists. The athiests assume no deity
>exists. I take neither of those positions.
Not possible. Agnosticism is not the wimpy middle between faith and
unbelief. It is a statement only about knowledge.
>I admit that I do not know
>but will be willing to follow actual human knowledge wherever it takes
>me. Hence the respect for the scientific method.
Unless you happen to run into something like Occam's Razor which is a
very reliable tool for abstract analysis. Why invent gods when there is
no need for them?
>> It's none of the above, but you may never be man enough to accept that.
>
>I accept what I know. When I get to the outer limits of that I suspend
>judgment as simple intellectual honest requires any honest man to do.
Nothing anyone knows implies that any gods exist. That includes the
Christian Triune God that you seem to be focused on.
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Dec 31 2009, 9:31�pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Le 2009-12-31 20:06, iconocl...@yahoo.com a �crit :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 31, 1:54 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> �wrote:
>> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:39, iconocl...@yahoo.com a �crit :
>>
>> >>> On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> � �wrote:
>> >>>> Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
>>
>> >>>>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>> >>>>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>> >>>>> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> >>>> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
>> >>>> would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>> >>>> So?
>>
>> >>> What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
>> >>> nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>>
>> >> You go ahead :
>>
>> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed religion.
>> > Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
>> > one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
>> > revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>>
>> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
>> > and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
>> > it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
>> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
>> > be too finite and limited to get there.
>>
>> > That took four minutes.
>>
>> Sure, it's the standard "holier-than-thou" agnostic screed. That
>> discourse is a failure because it does not address faith, it addresses
>> knowledge.
>
>Read it again. It addresses both faith and knowledge.
But is riddled with error.
>> Agnostics zealots are generally cowards.
>
>On the contrary, they face the consequences of their human
>limitations..
>
>> For example : do you believe in "god"?
>
>No, as I have no evidence of its existence.
>
>> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
>
>You got it.
>
> And remember, the question is *not*
>> about knowledge.
>
>Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
>position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
Faith and knowledge are separate concepts.
>We'll see where this will go.
>
>We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
>their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
>what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
>opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
>stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
>known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
>they suspend judgment.
You are the one who asserts, contrary to what atheists have told you,
that atheists say that God does not exist. That may be a conclusion that
they reach, but it is not a necessary conclusion to be atheist. One
merely need not believe to be atheist.
Free Lunch
>On Jan 1, 3:34�am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
>> position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
>>
>> We'll see where this will go.
>>
>> We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
>> their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
>> what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
>> opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
>> stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
>> known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
>> they suspend judgment.
>
>You are equivocating between the terms "faith" and "belief" and they
>are not the same.
In religious discussions they generally are, but they both are based on
an acceptance of X without any evidence for X. The problem is the
available equivocal meanings of both faith and belief.
Free Lunch
>On Dec 31 2009, 1:39�pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
><coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 1:35�pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
>>
>> > > I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>> > > you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>> > > prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> > If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
>> > would make us very happy for 2010.
>>
>> > So?
>>
>> What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
>> nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
Yet you came here and played anti-atheist. Why?
>Considering that this newsgroup on atheism has been around
>for almost 20 years, I'd say you are wrong. I'd also say that as
>far as atheism is concerned, you are a total ignoramus and
>probably a bigot, as well.
Well, this would be a much quieter and more civil group if we didn't
have so many theists dropping in to disrupt things.
Still, Happy New Year to all, even the trolls.
Olrik
Then you're an atheist. Or an agnostic atheist, if you will.
>> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
>
> You got it.
Excellent.
Olrik
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Dec 31 2009, 1:39 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
Clip for clarity
> > What makes you think that atheism is worthy of its own group? There is
> > nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>
> Considering that this newsgroup on atheism has been around
> for almost 20 years, I'd say you are wrong. I'd also say that as
> far as atheism is concerned, you are a total ignoramus and
> probably a bigot, as well.
What you "say" and what makes sense are very different. One can
usually determine the ability of a given poster by how quickly he or
she resorts responses like "ignoramus" and "bigot."
Here's your logic:
P 1: Iconoclast says that everything of interest relating to atheism
can be dealt with in about ten minutes.
P 2: Iconoclast then deals with everything of interest relating to
atheism in about four minutes.
P 3: Hypati says, "But we've spent twenty years on this four minute
issue!"
THEREFORE, "it is impossible that everything of interest relating to
atheism can be dealt with in less than twenty years."
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Jan 1, 6:19�am, "hypati...@comcast.net" <hypati...@comcast.net>
You forgot that you were wrong.
Trance Gemini
It's like you said before. They're seeing it from inside their box and
they can't grasp the fact that we're not in their box. We're outside
of it.
It's not a hard concept to grasp but one has to be willing to learn to
understand it and that's where they fail. They embrace their
ignorance.
Trance Gemini
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:04:56 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
>
>
> >On Jan 1, 3:34 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >> Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
> >> position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
>
> >> We'll see where this will go.
>
> >> We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
> >> their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
> >> what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
> >> opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
> >> stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
> >> known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
> >> they suspend judgment.
>
> >You are equivocating between the terms "faith" and "belief" and they
> >are not the same.
>
> In religious discussions they generally are, but they both are based on
> an acceptance of X without any evidence for X. The problem is the
> available equivocal meanings of both faith and belief.
>
I'm sure that's the case but they really need to learn English and
stop making up their own definitions of words and equivocating on
one's that don't mean the same thing.
That's why I always try to make this point.
Nice response to Iconoclast, by the way. Well put.
Free Lunch
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Yes, it's absurd for someone to try to claim victory in an argument by
using language dishonestly. It's even more absurd when it works on
someone who didn't catch it.
>That's why I always try to make this point.
Eventually they may understand.
>Nice response to Iconoclast, by the way. Well put.
Thanks.
teresita
> Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed religion.
> Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not one based on
> knowledge.
Of course Atheism is not based on knowledge, there's absolutely no
available data sets of God knowledge to duplicate field observations and
verify the God Hypothesis.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
teresita
> Yes, yes there is. Atheism has no basis for belief other than the
> desire to say no to all the evidence.
<eyeroll>There's so much evidence atheists hardly know where to begin
saying yes. </eyeroll>
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:0e61ac03-3376-490d-
>
> snip
>
> >> >> You go ahead :
>
> > Okay. Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> > religion. Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
> > one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
> > revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
> > and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
> > it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> > be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> > That took four minutes.
> >> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> >> > religion.
> > Atheism requires a leap of faith because we can not rule out the
> > existence of God. To be an atheist one must accept on faith that God
> > doesn't exist even though that is unknowable.
>
> What is known, is no god fits the requirements of its followers, and in
> fact, frequently in a diametrically opposed to the claims made on his
> behalf.
I am an agnostic. You, an atheist, are making an argument against the
religious, your leap-of-faith brothers. My position is not touched by
arguments against religion's gods. We acknowledge that we don't know
whether god or gods exist or not and won't take either position on
presumption or faith.
As an example, the revealed gods of the desert cannot exist as
> claimed by the followers. The primary in original god él was fairly benign,
> and those replaced him were not. The Hebrew Bible indicates a very vicious
> self-centered egotistic god who will not accept his chosen people
> worshiping any other deity. His so-called son, who feels every Messiah test
> and requirement given by the Hebrew Bible, is in the same category. Unless
> of course, you have never read the Greek Testaments. And if you haven't, do
> not even qualified to speak on the subject. And then we have the last and
> most violent of all, the replacement for Yahweh, commonly referred to as
> Allah.
Again you are rehearsing your oft repeated argument against the
existence of a particular god. That doesn't help you a bit opposite an
agnostic. I don't know of the existence of any god, so you attack a
strawman, not me.
> In those particular issues, as well as a multitude of other gods, it can be
> shown that they do not exist as described. Therefore, there is no sense in
> even considering the question. After all, I'm certain you're not concerned
> whether or not any of the following gods are readily available for worship.
You continue to argue against some third party, an imaginary debater,
not against me. I don't accept any of mankind's gods either. They are
not evidence for the existence of god. They are evidence of man's
struggle to transcend the limits of his knowledge.
What you are not addressing is my central point, that you atheists get
to the "god doesn't exist" position by assumption, by faith, and not
by evidence or knowledge. To that extent you are parallel to the
believers. They believe god does exist. You believe god doesn't exist.
Both of you are "believers." I'm not a believer. I limit my
conclusions rigorously to what I know. And we agnostics are certainly
not "more holy" than anyone. We acknowledge that we've no evidence
that anything holy exists.
Clip your list of alleged gods as irrelevant to the logical
distinction between atheism and agnosticism which we're examining.
> and those gods, recognized by various portions of humanity, are simply a
> scratch on the surface of potential gods to be recognized and worried over
> by agnostics. But not my atheist.
Even now you don't understand agnosticism. We don't spend any time
whatever "recognizing" or being concerned at all by man's compulsion
to explain the universe through something supernatural. That's a
psychological condition common to most of mankind. It has nothing to
do with verifiable knowledge about the existence or non-existence of
god or gods.
> > Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not one
based
> > on knowledge.
>
> >> Not at all, you're misuse of the word religion not withstanding.
> >> Relig
> > ious
> >> faith rarely is subject to change based on evidence. Atheism, by its
> >> v
> > erfy
> >> nature, lacks that feature. If a god shows up, I will acknowledge it
> >> a
> > s a
> >> god.
> > Thank you for admitting that until God shows up you will take on faith
> > the position that he/she/it doesn't exist.
> There is a large difference between taking something on faith based on
> evidence, such as the sun continuing to rise in the east according to
> tradition, and a artsy fartsy god worshiper in disguise. You see, you
> cannot even use the word of faith correctly.
We know that the sun rises in the east. It doesn't do so according to
tradition. It is a physical fact. We accept that as it is a part of
human knowledge. We don't have any human knowledge of this type which
supports the existence or non-existence of god. Until we attain it we
must suspend judgment, stand bye and watch religionists and atheists
struggle against each other despite basing their arguments on the same
things, unprovable assumptions and faith in them.
> > Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods of the
> >> desert, is another matter.
>
> > That's not the question we're addressing.
> But it is germane to the conversation.
No, it's germane to your politics, not to philosophy on the existence
or non-existence of god.
Would you willingly believe in an
> evil god if you follow the revealed gods of the desert, you do. And that's
> according to their history. Recorded history, destroyed temples, scorched
> cities, and other evidence of violence and mayhem done in the name of god.
I don't "believe" when there is no verifiable human knowledge on the
subject. I'll speculate like anyone else. But, what's the purpose of
pretending to believe when in fact you don't know? Like atheism it
would require a leap of faith. You and the god types are obverse
images of each other. I don't think atheism is a bit more respectable
intellectually than, for example, Judaism or Hinduism. To buy into
atheism you have to go beyond what mankind knows. To buy into Judaism
you have to go beyond what mankind knows. One is positive, the other
negative, but both are assumption-driven. Truth seekers must reject
both of those positions, at least at present. As you are in fact
political and not in the least philosophical you should admit that and
quit calling yourselves atheists. You are anti-clerical militants.
There is nothing new about that. Priests went to the guillotine in
France and were shot in Mexico, for examples.
>
> >> It is indeed based on knowledge. The knowledge that all gods & the
> >> claims
> >> for them can not be true, but they can all be false.
It's not appropriate for you to struggle against the religious when
you are opposite an agnostic. We are not religious. Perhaps you will
have understood the point by the time you respond to this post.
The knowledge
> >> that
> >> there is no need of gods outside the weak minded, whether natural or
> >> induced from childhood by abusive parents or an abusive society.
Need is not a criterion for agnostics. Knowledge is. Need leads to
naked assumptions, faith. Our new world is braver than yours.
> >> > Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of revealed religion
> >> > and th
> > e opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> >> Since when is atheism a scientific discipline.
It isn't. It's the opposite. It is a faith-based system, one which
could not exist but for an unprovable assumption, that God does not
exist. You ridicule Christian beliefs but are just as subject to
ridicule for the lack of philosophical rigor in your own position
which results in cultivating your own little religious belief, that
god doesn't exist. That hasn't become a part of human knowledge. You
take it on faith, just like the religious do as to the existence of
god.
> > It isn't. I neither said nor implied that.
> You indicated that it should have a scientific spirit which would indicate
> a scientific discipline.
Agnosticism incorporates the scientific spirit insofar as it relates
to actual human knowledge. Let's call it a preference for empirical
reality over blind faith. Agnostics have no obligation to become
scientists, just to unflinchingly follow actual, verifiable human
knowledge and to suspend judgment until it appears. It's a form of
intellectual discipline.
> > Or are you trying out the
> >> stabndard [for xians] misuse of the English language.
>
> > I'm actually using the language precisely. Perhaps you don't
> > understand.
>
> I do, and I recognized the old saying coming true again. If you can't
> dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullishit. It's a
> rather standard routine for the razzle-dazzle crowd. Pretending that words
> only have certain limited definitions is the favorite routine for those
> that really have nothing to offer.
Good, you understand. But so far I can't verify that because you have
not come to grips with the logic which differentiates atheism from
agnosticism. I say to you that you can not, based on present human
knowledge, affirm or deny the existence of god, and that when you deny
that existence you do so on an unverifiable presumption. I say that is
an act the equivalent of believing that god created the earth and the
heavens in seven days. I object to the use of unverifiable
presumptions.
> >> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses
> >> > any an
> > d all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method.
>
> >> No, it does not. It pre-supposes a deity & says we can not know
> >> anything
> >> about that deity.
>
> > Definitely not. You confuse it with Deism. Agnosticism is quite the
>
> No, I do not. Dieism is quite specific, and is in reality the only
> unfalsifiable god known to humanity.
Think now. Deism isn't a god. It's a human belief system, an "ism". It
exists irrespective of whether god exists.
And yet, given the parameters of that
> deity, there is no reason to even concern yourself with trying to
> understand or admit or deny that he exists. Therefore, there is no reason
> to believe in him.
You really are a faith oriented person. All these "hims" you fret
about. Why do you struggle to debunk the absurd. Rise to the next
level. Question your own premises as frequently as you question your
opponents'.
> > opposite. It pre-supposes nothing whatever. It relies exclusively on
>
> If they did not presuppose anything, and the question of the gods existence
> or part about that god would be moot and not worth the skull sweat
> agnostics claim to devote to the question. Therefore, as a simple
> deduction, a deity concept of some sort is required to justify agnosticism.
Not at all. We say we don't have the information necessary to making a
decision as to whether god exists or not. That's a far more sensible
position than yours, i.e., taking it on faith that god does not exist.
> Of course, if you are playing the look at me I'm intellectually superior to
> everyone else card, then it really doesn't matter what position you take.
It would be better if you used whatever horsepower you have to focus
on what I say.
> > what we humans know. We don't know that God exists. By the same token
> > we can not prove the non-existence of God.
>
> Unless there are claims made for those gods they can be examined and
> qualified. Such is the case with the revealed gods of the desert. And they
> are written indicates they are failures and therefore nonexistent or
> unworthy of worship. Either way, there's no reason to believe in them. At
> least, not actively. Of course if you're afraid of death and no longer
> existing, it might be to your benefit to believe in them.
You guys bash the religious every day and yet as a matter of logic you
are the obverse side of their coin. You take on faith the non-
existence of god. You couldn't get along without the naive Ike types
to beat up on. Frankly, as I said above, I think you cling to
atheism despite its logical weaknesses simply to justify lashing out
at religious people. That's an obsessive quirk in personality common
to the people who hang out on alt.atheism. You display a militant
intolerance characteristic of religious fundamentalists.
> >>> Therefore it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more
> >>> courageous
> >> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove
> >> > to be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> >> Then why is it even existant?
> > You are saying that, not I. I admit that I do not and perhaps even can not know whether or not God exists.
>
> That was my question, one you have not answered. Why is the exotic position
> assumed to be ethical or courageous when in fact, it is neither.
You haven't addressed whether agnosticism is ethical or courageous. I
have and I'm prepared to argue it. It is certainly not exotic, not
among intellectuals anyway. If they've thought about it at all it's
pretty much the default position.
> In this particular case we can. By your capitalization of the word god you
> indicate that you follow one of the revealed gods of the desert. Either
> actively, or by custom. Why, only you can answer to yourself.
No, I capitalize it part of the time simply to show basic respect for
other traditions. Here it was a typo. I'm not out to bash anyone but
the ignorantly intolerant, especially those which carry it into
politics.
> > It starts out with a failed hypothosis [the
> >> assumed deity, brand immaterial], & then declares postulates for that
> >> failed hypothosis. That is not even cl;ose to beiong scientific.
>
> > The religionists assume a deity exists. The athiests assume no deity
> > exists. I take neither of those positions. I admit that I do not know.
>
> But you do, you just not on enough with yourself to admit that.
No, I've been a comfortable agnostic for close to sixty years. Its
effects have been positive. I've neither had to struggle to appear to
believe something I could not nor to think in terms of the angry
missionary atheism you affect. I don't injustice and prejudice but
other than that I'm pretty much a live and let live guy.
If you took
> neither position, the question would be immaterial and unimportant to you.
See my last entry above.
> But honestly you fire yourself with great importance and therefore, like a
> person I'm acquainted with which the pen name you are using, pretend you
> are intimately superior to others due to your belief.
The readership can make their judgments about pretensions and
assumptions and the aggression you display. I don't care. But if you
can't handle the mild-mannered criticism I have presented here I'm not
surprised much. Internet atheists tend to be militant, perpetually
abrasive, looking for the next put down. And for what? The shock value
of atheism among the naive?
> Your position is ethically bankrupt.
We've not been discussing morals or ethics. It's been more akin to
what they call epistemology. But you have gotten frustrated enough to
begin hurling ill-considered insults. Ethics and morals have nothing
to do with whether god exists. Though I'm an agnostic I'm firmly
within the Christian ethical tradition. It's the distilled experience
of thousands of years of trial and error. It's origins were
experiential, not religious. What worked got passed down. Who am I to
reject that gold mine?
Are you concerned about Red Cap? If
> not why not? Are you concerned about Jenni Greentooth? Again, why not. If
> these are not concerned with yours, then your position of being an agnostic
> is phony and just so much posturing. It may feel good for you, but it's
> irritating to those that are done the research.
I've never heard of either of them. But individual personalities are
irrelevant to the elementary epistemological question we've been
looking at. Our positions stand and fall on logical principles, not on
personalities. If you have intellectual integrity you didn't become an
atheist for political reasons. If you did we really ought to talk
about that!
> > but will be willing to follow actual human knowledge wherever it takes
> > me. Hence the respect for the scientific method.
>
> No, you're not going to follow actual human knowledge wherever it might
> take you. If you were, you would not be an agnostic or a theist.
I am not a theist. Get over it. That's inconsistent with agnosticism.
But, the
> more likely majority of the atheist community, apathetic to claims of the
> uninformed.
You combat apathy? You want activism in your "community?" You see it
in political, not philosophical, terms. It's a movement! Well,
bullshit. It's a sophomoric preoccupation. You'd be far better off to
discard athiesm in favor of a purely secular ideology based on the
crimes and misdemeanors of organized religion. By pretending to be
philosophers when in fact you simply want to bash religion, is to be
insufficiently honest, to be vulnerable.
> >> It's none of the above, but you may never be man enough to accept
> >> that.
>
> > I accept what I know. When I get to the outer limits of that I suspend judgment as simple intellectual honesty requires any man to do.
> No you don't, because you would yourself by not doing the research
> necessary to come to a basic understanding of the question of deity and its
> role in human society. A role that is steadily decreasing and eroding
> except in the poverty-stricken areas of the Middle East.
Ah yes, I thought so. You justify your militant attitude against
religious people by labeling it atheism. You think your bashing is
thus clothed in dignity.
Tell me, what is the origin of the increasingly fervent Islamic
revival in the Middle East. Think carefully about that.
> Then you need to look up those definitions. Either that or do the
research
> necessary to come to a conclusion based on actual verifiable information.
> Of course you will not do this, because that would rattle your cage and you
> would no longer be intellectually superior to anyone in your own eyes. And
> if you are who I think you are, that would never do.
I am Hunter Watson. Who are you?
> > You didn't understand my argument.
>
> >> > That took four minutes.
>
> >> You wasted four minutes & failed to support your position.
>
> > You didn't understand the argument. That's a shame as it is an
> > elementary classic.
>
> It was elementary, and easily understood. The shame is that you thought it
> was an argument worth paying attention to.
Unfortunately, you didn't address it. Your militant attitude floats in
the air on nothing but an act of faith.
> >> walksalone who suspects he may be familiar with the above poster. If
> >> s
> > o,
> >> he can use more words to say nothing than GW Bush ever could.
>
> > I have not used many words here.
>
> Verbosity is not limited to quantity, it can also be a qualifier for
> quality.
But you haven't addressed the quality of my argument. That must be
because you have no response.
>
> walksalone who strongly suspects that he's quite familiar with this
> intellectually bankrupt poster. But I could be wrong, the style indicated
> 99.99^999999999 percent probability that I do in fact know him from the
> Baptist news group.
Why not. So what? Would you like a visit in your home Klavern,
alt.atheism?
If this is the case, then we might as well dig in for a
> round of a repetitious claims made on behalf of a bankrupt position where
> the gods are concerned. But that's all right, and his group has survived
> his likes before, and still as far as that goes. The difference between him
> and Duke and his ilk is very simple, this one is slightly better educated.
> Not well informed, educated.
Now that's really odd. Even among university people very little of
what ultimately comes to be known is acquired while on campus.
>
> What is it the Bible teaches us?—rapine, cruelty, and
> murder. What is it the Testament teaches us?—to believe
> that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman
> engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery
> is called faith.
> Thomas Paine
Haha. You too act on faith. I wish you had the discipline to stay on
the subject and the grasp to address what I say instead of pretending
I'm some sort of born-again Christian. My personal view is that it was
tragic for the Christian Church about three centuries after the death
of Christ to have formally adopted the Torah and the rest of what
became the Old Testament into the Christian Canon.
walksalone
news:62fa9591-3631-4425...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 1, 6:58 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:0e61ac03-33
> 76-490d-
>>
>> snip
snip excess verbosity
>> > That took four minutes.
>
>> >> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does
>> >> > revealed religion.
>
>> > Atheism requires a leap of faith because we can not rule out the
>> > existence of God. To be an atheist one must accept on faith that
>> > God doesn't exist even though that is unknowable.
>>
>> What is known, is no god fits the requirements of its followers, and
>> in fact, frequently in a diametrically opposed to the claims made on
>> his behalf.
>
> I am an agnostic. You, an atheist, are making an argument against the
You may call yourself whatever flatters you, but when it comes to
knowing of what you claim, ignorant is the correct word. Why should I
believe you are agnostic when you act like a follower of the revealed
gods of the deseert? I spould not & don't.
> religious, your leap-of-faith brothers. My position is not touched by
No, I am not. & this is one of the buttresses of your song & dance. I
don't even concern myself with your fantasies. Now what part of a lack
of belief [an active mental activity] is it that eludes you? I feel
safe you got all of it up to a l,ack of belief.
> arguments against religion's gods. We acknowledge that we don't know
I posit no arguments against your fairy tale, why qwould I. I am adult
enough to not ony accept your abbertaion as beiong your right, but
tolerate it as well. Untill you insist, as in this instance, that I
don't know what I do & do not hold a belief in. Or try & inject your
beliefs into politics or education. Then you are fair game.
> whether god or gods exist or not and won't take either position on
> presumption or faith.
But ylou have, you believe at least one god exists. Otherwise you would
not be concerned with the question. It's rather simple really. Of
course, maybe that is to simple, for you.
snip
>> of course, you have never read the Greek Testaments. And if you
>> haven't,
> do
>> not even qualified to speak on the subject. And then we have the last
>> and most violent of all, the replacement for Yahweh, commonly
>> referred to as Allah.
>
> Again you are rehearsing your oft repeated argument against the
The argumnt is not generic, any god who has followers that make claims
omn tgheir behalf are subject to the same scrutiny. Yours ikncluded.
> existence of a particular god. That doesn't help you a bit opposite an
> agnostic. I don't know of the existence of any god, so you attack a
> strawman, not me.
>
>
>> In those particular issues, as well as a multitude of other gods, it
>> can
> be
>> shown that they do not exist as described. Therefore, there is no
>> sense i
> n
>> even considering the question. After all, I'm certain you're not
>> concerne
> d
>> whether or not any of the following gods are readily available for
>> worshi
> p.
>
> You continue to argue against some third party, an imaginary debater,
> not against me. I don't accept any of mankind's gods either. They are
No, I'm not argueing with youi or anyon ele. I am simply rubbing your
nose in your own mess. A mess yolu were not obliged to make, but wanted
to. & did. You know what I mean Vern?
> not evidence for the existence of god. They are evidence of man's
> struggle to transcend the limits of his knowledge.
Not really, they are the over active imaginations of primitives whose
offspring may live in better conditions. But still share the fears of
their ancestors. Now, you can pretend to seek knowledge of the gods,
which is a farce in its own right, or you can study the claims for the
gods & have to smile when someone pretends to be agnostic.
> What you are not addressing is my central point, that you atheists get
> to the "god doesn't exist" position by assumption, by faith, and not
A false claim no honest or knowledgeable person would front. Why not
you ask, atheism requires something you lack in this field. The
integrity to look & draw logical conclusions. Xians in particular like
to claim lack of evidence is not lack of fact. It is when you have no
evidence when thereshould be evidence.
> by evidence or knowledge. To that extent you are parallel to the
No, I am not. To me the god is going to get you threat is meaningless,
as it should be. Not because I know there is no god out there that
rotten, but because it is meaningless noise used by leaders to control
the sheep. It still works.
Do you even know what a god is, & if so, can you articulate that
description. You might have one I can add to the list.
You see, your lacka is not binding on me. I don't accept your claims
for they are not what or who I am. You might try door #3.
> believers. They believe god does exist. You believe god doesn't exist.
When your premise ik wrong, everything you sputter is wrong. Care to
try that again, only this time try & understand whereyour base error is
& correct it. BTW, dictionary definitions show popular usage, which
does not always accurately reflect thee acual meaning of the word.
Unless you use the Humpty Dumpty routine that is. & even then, you are
wrong in your assumptions.
> Both of you are "believers." I'm not a believer. I limit my
> conclusions rigorously to what I know. And we agnostics are certainly
> not "more holy" than anyone. We acknowledge that we've no evidence
> that anything holy exists.
Yet you waste your time & skull sweat on the question, you old believer
you.
> Clip your list of alleged gods as irrelevant to the logical
But they were not irrelevant, are you or are you not agnostic to any or
all of them, including I suspect, yours. Know what I mean Vern? After
all, they are god to their followers.
> distinction between atheism and agnosticism which we're examining.
No, we ar not. You are pretending to be in a position to spout like a
bl.own whale, & we, the atheist community, are IAW you, are to clap our
flippers like a trained seal & applaud your muddled thinking. Not on
your say so. Evidence Vern, you aren't going to impres any atheist
without it.
>> and those gods, recognized by various portions of humanity, are
>> simply a scratch on the surface of potential gods to be recognized
>> and worried ove
> r
>> by agnostics. But not my atheist.
> Even now you don't understand agnosticism. We don't spend any time
Oh but I do, it is the cowards way out of a position they brought on
themselves. & yes, they are ikntellectual colwards, but I can still
tolerate & accept agnostism as being right for them. After all, it is
not meant for everyone to be able to walk alone. Some people need
something to boost their stature kin their own eyes, somme need an
advrsary, & some, like myself, just are so unconcerned that it would
make you cry if you could comprehend the depth of that unconcern. Know
what I mean Vern?
> whatever "recognizing" or being concerned at all by man's compulsion
> to explain the universe through something supernatural. That's a
I don't have that compulsion, I'm sorry for you if you do.
> psychological condition common to most of mankind. It has nothing to
> do with verifiable knowledge about the existence or non-existence of
> god or gods.
It does to the atheist, & that you can't seem to accept. Is it that
frighting to you?
snip
>> > Thank you for admitting that until God shows up you will take on
>> > faith the position that he/she/it doesn't exist.
>
>> There is a large difference between taking something on faith based
>> on evidence, such as the sun continuing to rise in the east according
>> to tradition, and a artsy fartsy god worshiper in disguise. You see,
>> you cannot even use the word of faith correctly.
>
> We know that the sun rises in the east. It doesn't do so according to
It does so due to the reaction of fravity & planetary mass which causes
the earth to rotate in only one direction. That is called blief baed on
evidence. Evidence you can dny, but it does not go away.
> tradition. It is a physical fact. We accept that as it is a part of
It is indeed fact, but unlike the gods, we know why we should believe it
will continue to rise in the east until the sun goes south in about
5000000000 years, give or take a little.
> human knowledge. We don't have any human knowledge of this type which
> supports the existence or non-existence of god. Until we attain it we
You miss the obvious. If your'e the only one worried about definitions
that support his fantasy, then no one else need worry over them. Now,
if you can find likeminded people that share your fantasy, then you can
form a Gentleman's Club & really be somebody.
> must suspend judgment, stand bye and watch religionists and atheists
Why? On your say so? No, I don't think so. You have made many errors
in your thinking, among them is the question as to whether there is a
god, & all that implies, is imprtant is only one of them
> struggle against each other despite basing their arguments on the same
> things, unprovable assumptions and faith in them.
I don't make assumptions, I do use evidence, negative & positive & form
conclusions. When I don't know, I admit it. No shame in not knowing
everything. Know what I mean Vern? I do not assume every half baked
idea is worth skull sweat, especially not those with any supporting
evidence.
>> > Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods of
>> > the
>> >> desert, is another matter.
>>
>> > That's not the question we're addressing.
>
>> But it is germane to the conversation.
>
> No, it's germane to your politics, not to philosophy on the existence
> or non-existence of god.
It's germaine, just because you don't like it doesn't phase me a bit.
Knopw what I mean Vern?
> Would you willingly believe in an
>> evil god if you follow the revealed gods of the desert, you do. And
>> that'
> s
>> according to their history. Recorded history, destroyed temples,
>> scorched cities, and other evidence of violence and mayhem done in
>> the name of god
> .
>
> I don't "believe" when there is no verifiable human knowledge on the
> subject. I'll speculate like anyone else. But, what's the purpose of
> pretending to believe when in fact you don't know? Like atheism it
Atheism to be revoked requires evidence. Evidence for need, of
existence or consideration would be nice. For starters.
> would require a leap of faith. You and the god types are obverse
> images of each other. I don't think atheism is a bit more respectable
> intellectually than, for example, Judaism or Hinduism. To buy into
> atheism you have to go beyond what mankind knows. To buy into Judaism
> you have to go beyond what mankind knows. One is positive, the other
> negative, but both are assumption-driven. Truth seekers must reject
> both of those positions, at least at present. As you are in fact
> political and not in the least philosophical you should admit that and
> quit calling yourselves atheists. You are anti-clerical militants.
> There is nothing new about that. Priests went to the guillotine in
> France and were shot in Mexico, for examples.
Feel better now, wiope your nose & take ten deep breaths, & call a
doctor in the morning. What you think about atheism is immaterial to any
but yourself & others that are not mentally adults yet. & for you &
them, that's just fine. If you need the mental pabuulum, dig in. I
don't, nor do I know any atheists that would buy your farcial claims
about what atheism is.
>> >> It is indeed based on knowledge. The knowledge that all gods &
>> >> the claims
>> >> for them can not be true, but they can all be false.
>
> It's not appropriate for you to struggle against the religious when
> you are opposite an agnostic. We are not religious. Perhaps you will
> have understood the point by the time you respond to this post.
Who's struggling? & who determines what is appropriate for me, other
than myself & those I associate willingly with? Certainly not the likes
of you who does not even know what atheism is all about, or how it is a
very unimportant part of an atheists life.
> The knowledge
>> >> that
>> >> there is no need of gods outside the weak minded, whether natural
>> >> or induced from childhood by abusive parents or an abusive
>> >> society.
>
> Need is not a criterion for agnostics. Knowledge is. Need leads to
> naked assumptions, faith. Our new world is braver than yours.
Now, self delusion is the only requirement I've been able to detect.
But that is fine for you & those that need an excxuse to pretend to be
superior to others.
>> >> > Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of revealed religion
>> >> > and th
>> > e opposite of the scientific spirit.
>>
>> >> Since when is atheism a scientific discipline.
> It isn't. It's the opposite. It is a faith-based system, one which
Again you proudly declare your ignorance for all the world to see.
> could not exist but for an unprovable assumption, that God does not
It does nt require any god to not exist, it requires people like you to
make claims on behalf of any god, that can not be supported by evidence.
> exist. You ridicule Christian beliefs but are just as subject to
> ridicule for the lack of philosophical rigor in your own position
I ridicule anyone that is a pom,pous ass, like ylou are being. I don't
believe in singling out tsimply those that can't accept the IPU as the
only true deity, & the FSM is coming on strongas well. His followers
have even ran the Phelps crew pack up & leave town, failing in their
effort to disrupt another funeral. Good on them I say.
> which results in cultivating your own little religious belief, that
> god doesn't exist. That hasn't become a part of human knowledge. You
I realise that you can not acceptthis, but you are wrong. My beliefs,
that are unfounded, cxan be changed with evoidence. This is something
you can'rt accept. Religions require uinfounded belief, & the cl,aims
for the gods fail the need for as well as the lacka evidence tests.
> take it on faith, just like the religious do as to the existence of
> god.
Not really, I just include their gods in the gods I lack a belief in.
>> > It isn't. I neither said nor implied that.
>> You indicated that it should have a scientific spirit which would
>> indicat
> e
>> a scientific discipline.
>
> Agnosticism incorporates the scientific spirit insofar as it relates
No, it does not. Science does not continue to waste skull sweat on
obvious dead ends. Agnostism does not even make it to the hypothesis
level, let alone theory.
> to actual human knowledge. Let's call it a preference for empirical
> reality over blind faith. Agnostics have no obligation to become
Call it anything you want, but science it isn't.
> scientists, just to unflinchingly follow actual, verifiable human
> knowledge and to suspend judgment until it appears. It's a form of
> intellectual discipline.
No, you have a variety of self induced delusion that is a can cer in the
minds of thinking people. You have deluded youself into several blind
allys. Among them,
There is a god, or the question would be at best, moot. At worst,
mental masturbation. That you are unique & able to discern what others
you do not personally know are, or are not. That your hollow claims &
pretensions are taken seriously by yuor intended audience. That you know
what you are talking about & can speak with unquestioned authority. IOW,
you are danceing for the amusment of the alt.atheism newsgroup.
>> > Or are you trying out the
>> >> stabndard [for xians] misuse of the English language.
>>
>> > I'm actually using the language precisely. Perhaps you don't
>> > understand.
>>
>> I do, and I recognized the old saying coming true again. If you can't
>> dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullishit.
>> It's a rather standard routine for the razzle-dazzle crowd.
>> Pretending that word
> s
>> only have certain limited definitions is the favorite routine for
>> those that really have nothing to offer.
>
> Good, you understand. But so far I can't verify that because you have
> not come to grips with the logic which differentiates atheism from
Logic, where have you used logic. You have appealed to several logical
fallacies, but used ikt you have not. Know what I mean Vern? Occam's
razor copmes into play for starters.
> agnosticism. I say to you that you can not, based on present human
> knowledge, affirm or deny the existence of god, and that when you deny
& I don't. Other than I jmust don't care, I don't know & am totally
unconcerned. IOW, I have no active belief in any god you can imagine.
The world does not scare me that baddly.
> that existence you do so on an unverifiable presumption. I say that is
> an act the equivalent of believing that god created the earth and the
> heavens in seven days. I object to the use of unverifiable
> presumptions.
Yet here you are touting your brand of confusion & pretending it is
somehow, a means of your unapparent mental & ethical superiority.
>> >> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses
>> >> > any an
>> > d all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method.
>>
>> >> No, it does not. It pre-supposes a deity & says we can not know
>> >> anything
>> >> about that deity.
>>
>> > Definitely not. You confuse it with Deism. Agnosticism is quite the
>> No, I do not. Dieism is quite specific, and is in reality the only
>> unfalsifiable god known to humanity.
> Think now. Deism isn't a god. It's a human belief system, an "ism". It
> exists irrespective of whether god exists.
Try following your own advice. Deism postulates a creator that when
done, left the control wind, pausing to break wind & turn out the
lights. Never to be seen or heard from again. You were attrmpting to
bullshit the troops.
> And yet, given the parameters of that
>> deity, there is no reason to even concern yourself with trying to
>> understand or admit or deny that he exists. Therefore, there is no
>> reason to believe in him.
Exactly, & your confusion arises from what exactly. It is,
intellectually, superior to agnostic claims.
> You really are a faith oriented person. All these "hims" you fret
> about. Why do you struggle to debunk the absurd. Rise to the next
I don't worry about posers like you running around pretending they have
something special. & if I suck ujp to them, they might share it with
me, for a price of course. You are no fast Tony & that's a fact.
> level. Question your own premises as frequently as you question your
> opponents'.
I have no oppomnets. Just p[eople that like you, are not housebroken
yet & when they find the athgeist newsgroup, make a mess. Like
anyhother small animal, I get out the newspaper, rub their nose in their
ignorance & rants, & apply a gentle corrective swat. Then I boot them
out the door when they continue to fail to realise, their trash in not
even on topic in the atheist news group.
>> > opposite. It pre-supposes nothing whatever. It relies exclusively
>> > on
>>
>> If they did not presuppose anything, and the question of the gods
>> existen
> ce
>> or part about that god would be moot and not worth the skull sweat
>> agnostics claim to devote to the question. Therefore, as a simple
>> deduction, a deity concept of some sort is required to justify
>> agnosticis
> m.
>
> Not at all. We say we don't have the information necessary to making a
> decision as to whether god exists or not. That's a far more sensible
> position than yours, i.e., taking it on faith that god does not exist.
No, you say that. & yes, it requires faith in a deity construct, active
of nebulous. Otherwise, you would be simply poseing, like you are
doing now.
>> Of course, if you are playing the look at me I'm intellectually
>> superior
> to
>> everyone else card, then it really doesn't matter what position you
>> take.
>
> It would be better if you used whatever horsepower you have to focus
> on what I say.
But you don't actually say anything, just repeat noises made by others
before you. Noises that will be repeated by others that think they have
found a silver bullet. Poor sods never realise that paper bullets are
not good for anything but decorations, & not very good at that.
>> > what we humans know. We don't know that God exists. By the same
>> > token we can not prove the non-existence of God.
>>
>> Unless there are claims made for those gods they can be examined and
>> qualified. Such is the case with the revealed gods of the desert. And
>> the
> y
>> are written indicates they are failures and therefore nonexistent or
>> unworthy of worship. Either way, there's no reason to believe in
>> them. At least, not actively. Of course if you're afraid of death and
>> no longer existing, it might be to your benefit to believe in them.
>
> You guys bash the religious every day and yet as a matter of logic you
No, we dopn't. But then, in your eye we do. We don't meekly sit still
& shut up when you want us to agree with you. Get used to it.
> are the obverse side of their coin. You take on faith the non-
> existence of god. You couldn't get along without the naive Ike types
> to beat up on. Frankly, as I said above, I think you cling to
Actgually, I get along without him rather well. Thanatos escorted him
to the abyss a l,ong time back. Terminal stupidity & boorishness IIRC.
Want to jin him?
> atheism despite its logical weaknesses simply to justify lashing out
> at religious people. That's an obsessive quirk in personality common
> to the people who hang out on alt.atheism. You display a militant
> intolerance characteristic of religious fundamentalists.
Speak for yourself, you can't speak for me. I don't permit that.
>> >>> Therefore it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far
>> >>> more courageous
>> >> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end
>> >> > prove to be too finite and limited to get there.
>>
>> >> Then why is it even existant?
>
>> > You are saying that, not I. I admit that I do not and perhaps even
>> > can
> not know whether or not God exists.
>>
>> That was my question, one you have not answered. Why is the exotic
>> positi
> on
>> assumed to be ethical or courageous when in fact, it is neither.
>
> You haven't addressed whether agnosticism is ethical or courageous. I
I don't need to, I asked for information. Information youi will avoid
providing which helps establish you are not ethically or morally
superior to atheists.
> have and I'm prepared to argue it. It is certainly not exotic, not
> among intellectuals anyway. If they've thought about it at all it's
> pretty much the default position.
Then they haven't thought about it. Unles you dabble in philosophy,
questions without answers are not the norm.
>> In this particular case we can. By your capitalization of the word
>> god yo
> u
>> indicate that you follow one of the revealed gods of the desert.
>> Either actively, or by custom. Why, only you can answer to yourself.
>
> No, I capitalize it part of the time simply to show basic respect for
I calll bullshit, you respect no one but yourself. & I for one do not
give lip service to the imaginary fiends of others.
> other traditions. Here it was a typo. I'm not out to bash anyone but
> the ignorantly intolerant, especially those which carry it into
> politics.
Then you should go to the appropriate groups, like the xian ones.
>> > It starts out with a failed hypothosis [the
>> >> assumed deity, brand immaterial], & then declares postulates for
>> >> that failed hypothosis. That is not even cl;ose to beiong
>> >> scientific.
>>
>> > The religionists assume a deity exists. The athiests assume no
>> > deity exists. I take neither of those positions. I admit that I do
>> > not know.
>>
>> But you do, you just not on enough with yourself to admit that.
>
> No, I've been a comfortable agnostic for close to sixty years. Its
> effects have been positive. I've neither had to struggle to appear to
Yet here you are posturing like you are someone. In your world, I hope
you are, but this newsgroup is not your world.
> believe something I could not nor to think in terms of the angry
> missionary atheism you affect. I don't injustice and prejudice but
> other than that I'm pretty much a live and let live guy.
Care to point out my missionary atheism? You can't, I don't go that
route. To me, it is unethical. But then, you donm't care about that,
you only care about yourelf & gaining smug satisfaction from showing
those mean old atheists what is what. So, when are you going to get
started? Know what I mean Vern?
> If you took
>> neither position, the question would be immaterial and unimportant to
>> you
> .
>
> See my last entry above.
I did, it's to green to uise as fertilizer.
>> But honestly you fire yourself with great importance and therefore,
>> like
> a
>> person I'm acquainted with which the pen name you are using, pretend
>> you are intimately superior to others due to your belief.
> The readership can make their judgments about pretensions and
> assumptions and the aggression you display. I don't care. But if you
> can't handle the mild-mannered criticism I have presented here I'm not
You have done nothingb but parrot othjer, & attempted to demean & defame
people you don't even know. Terminal ignorance can permit that conduct,
& the ignorant one never can believe that of themselves.
> surprised much. Internet atheists tend to be militant, perpetually
> abrasive, looking for the next put down. And for what? The shock value
> of atheism among the naive?
According to you. But I have met to many that actually care about
others, even theists. By the by, your problem is that you appear o
assume that xian invaders in the atheist newsgroup should be coddled.
They are on their own & receive the contempt they earn.
>> Your position is ethically bankrupt.
>
> We've not been discussing morals or ethics. It's been more akin to
> what they call epistemology. But you have gotten frustrated enough to
> begin hurling ill-considered insults. Ethics and morals have nothing
> to do with whether god exists. Though I'm an agnostic I'm firmly
> within the Christian ethical tradition. It's the distilled experience
> of thousands of years of trial and error. It's origins were
> experiential, not religious. What worked got passed down. Who am I to
> reject that gold mine?
Which does not remove the observation, your position is ethically
bankrupt. You ee, when you pretend that a question concerning the
unkowable is really really important, & fail to support that claim, in
layman's terms, you are a charlatan & a liar. IOW, by the standards I
apply to myself, etchically bankrupt. All you havce to offer is the
path to self doubt based on fears only you can imagine apply to others &
not yourself.
> Are you concerned about Red Cap? If
>> not why not? Are you concerned about Jenni Greentooth? Again, why
>> not. If these are not concerned with yours, then your position of
>> being an agnost
> ic
>> is phony and just so much posturing. It may feel good for you, but
>> it's irritating to those that are done the research.
>
> I've never heard of either of them. But individual personalities are
> irrelevant to the elementary epistemological question we've been
Here is a hint, untl agnostics adderess the question about all of the
gods existence, it will always be a position of confusion & a refuge for
posers. There are deities, minor ones that are not the ones you want to
invite home to meet the family.
> looking at. Our positions stand and fall on logical principles, not on
LOgical what. Logic does not have to be true, just logical. But then,
you may not have known that. They don't mention things like that in
Sunday schools.
> personalities. If you have intellectual integrity you didn't become an
> atheist for political reasons. If you did we really ought to talk
> about that!
I became an atheist for one simple reason, lacka. It took a fat ugly
Southern Bapitist whotried to use the word as an insult. & I never had
the decency to thank her. That is how important my atheism is. & talk
about it, how, you don't even understand the position for it is alien to
you. Atheists just don't care about your gods & they are not pivitol in
our lives.
>> > but will be willing to follow actual human knowledge wherever it
>> > takes me. Hence the respect for the scientific method.
>>
>> No, you're not going to follow actual human knowledge wherever it
>> might take you. If you were, you would not be an agnostic or a
>> theist.
>
> I am not a theist. Get over it. That's inconsistent with agnosticism.
It is the unacknowledged core of agnostic thought. One does not waste
skull sweat over something one does not accept as provisionally true.
> But, the
>> more likely majority of the atheist community, apathetic to claims of
>> the uninformed.
>
> You combat apathy? You want activism in your "community?" You see it
> in political, not philosophical, terms. It's a movement! Well,
I see it from thebleater brigade, & then they generally wish they had
done something else. & no, I don't combat apathy, why make the sheep
run over a cliff. Some nice peron might be in the way.
> bullshit. It's a sophomoric preoccupation. You'd be far better off to
> discard athiesm in favor of a purely secular ideology based on the
There you go assuming you know what I should do. You don't, & you never
will.
> crimes and misdemeanors of organized religion. By pretending to be
> philosophers when in fact you simply want to bash religion, is to be
> insufficiently honest, to be vulnerable.
Like you? No thanks. I am what I am, & quite a few people know it.
>> >> It's none of the above, but you may never be man enough to accept
>> >> that.
>>
>> > I accept what I know. When I get to the outer limits of that I
>> > suspend
> judgment as simple intellectual honesty requires any man to do.
>
>> No you don't, because you would yourself by not doing the research
>> necessary to come to a basic understanding of the question of deity
>> and i
> ts
>> role in human society. A role that is steadily decreasing and eroding
>> except in the poverty-stricken areas of the Middle East.
>
> Ah yes, I thought so. You justify your militant attitude against
> religious people by labeling it atheism. You think your bashing is
> thus clothed in dignity.
No, you don't see. I don't care what a person believes until they get
out of line with it. Being religious is no excuse for being stupid,
rude, or ignorant & uncareing about others.
I actually met a girl who said she did not mind a long line at the cash
register, because god might be making her late to an accident she would
have had otherwise. Never mind anyone else, she was the only one so
important that a god would look out for her. She now makes sure she's
not is the same line as I am, & I don't miss her.
> Tell me, what is the origin of the increasingly fervent Islamic
> revival in the Middle East. Think carefully about that.
You really don't know. Hint, there is no single major cause & that is a
political discussion. OT for this group called alt.atheism.
> > Then you need to look up those definitions. Either that or do the
> research
Will that do anything but waste my time on a wild goose chase? & what
does that have to do with agnostism being ethically or morally superior
& not razzle dazzle?
>> necessary to come to a conclusion based on actual verifiable
>> information. Of course you will not do this, because that would
>> rattle your cage and y
> ou
>> would no longer be intellectually superior to anyone in your own
>> eyes. An
> d
>> if you are who I think you are, that would never do.
> I am Hunter Watson. Who are you?
I am walksalone, atheist, father, combatvetren, retired military, &
enjoying life. Not wasting it pretending I am on a search for the
answer to questions that have no answer. Think about that, if you can.
>> > You didn't understand my argument.
>> >> > That took four minutes.
>> >> You wasted four minutes & failed to support your position.
>>
>> > You didn't understand the argument. That's a shame as it is an
>> > elementary classic.
>>
>> It was elementary, and easily understood. The shame is that you
>> thought i
> t
>> was an argument worth paying attention to.
>
> Unfortunately, you didn't address it. Your militant attitude floats in
> the air on nothing but an act of faith.
You left nothing to address. Arguments based on confusion are by their
very nature,unaddressable.
>> >> walksalone who suspects he may be familiar with the above poster.
>> >> If s
>> > o,
>> >> he can use more words to say nothing than GW Bush ever could.
>>
>> > I have not used many words here.
>>
>> Verbosity is not limited to quantity, it can also be a qualifier for
>> quality.
>
> But you haven't addressed the quality of my argument. That must be
> because you have no response.
No, it is because, in spite of your claims, you have no argumnent. Your
claiming to have one does not equate to it being one until you provide
evidence to support your claim. Lacka strikes again.
>> walksalone who strongly suspects that he's quite familiar with this
>> intellectually bankrupt poster. But I could be wrong, the style
>> indicated 99.99^999999999 percent probability that I do in fact know
>> him from the Baptist news group.
>
> Why not. So what? Would you like a visit in your home Klavern,
> alt.atheism?
It helps me to decide whether I hand you over to Thanatos & allow him to
relocate you from the newsgroup, which is not a klaven, to the abys whre
on occasion you really will be intellectually superior to one or to
other residents.
> If this is the case, then we might as well dig in for a
>> round of a repetitious claims made on behalf of a bankrupt position
>> where the gods are concerned. But that's all right, and his group has
>> survived his likes before, and still as far as that goes. The
>> difference between h
> im
>> and Duke and his ilk is very simple, this one is slightly better
>> educated
> .
>> Not well informed, educated.
>
> Now that's really odd. Even among university people very little of
> what ultimately comes to be known is acquired while on campus.
Life has but one univrsity, & the final exam is always fatal. Likely to
remain so for quite some time.
>>
>> What is it the Bible teaches us?�rapine, cruelty, and
>> murder. What is it the Testament teaches us?�to believe
>> that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman
>> engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery
>> is called faith.
>> Thomas Paine
>
> Haha. You too act on faith. I wish you had the discipline to stay on
No, I have a rathr large selection of quote, & I try to tailor them to
the poster I am responding to. I like his definition of faith, even if
he was a believer.
> the subject and the grasp to address what I say instead of pretending
> I'm some sort of born-again Christian. My personal view is that it was
You are the pretender, & I have not said you are xian. Granted, on
ocassion you act like a usenet xian, but that is no concern of mine.
> tragic for the Christian Church about three centuries after the death
> of Christ to have formally adopted the Torah and the rest of what
> became the Old Testament into the Christian Canon.
They had no choice, their myth needed it to support their missing
messiah claim. To bad their messiah is not only missing, but a failure.
walksalone who sadly realises, the troll just changed the subject.
Didn't do a look up for the atheist group, but close to 300000 posts
since 02 if google can be believed. As verbose & confused as he has
been in this thread, I believe them.
What is a god, a short & incomplete list.
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other
divinities of the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the
Greek pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a
victim of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of
these types of gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less
powerful than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the
European ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
Hat, are not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the
world, they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
understand the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of
humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are
entitled to go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies
Virgil
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:27 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> >In article <gqupj5h1iub59trmn...@4ax.com>,
> > duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:35:16 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a �crit :
> >> >> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one
> >> >> of
> >> >> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
> >> >> prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
> >> >
> >> >If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism. That
> >> >would make us very happy for 2010.
> >> >
> >> >So?
> >>
> >> It makes me a lot happy hanging with you atheist wannabes.
> >
> >There is nothing "wannabe" about non-theism.
>
> Yes, yes there is. Atheism has no basis for belief other than the desire to
> say
> no to all the evidence. That makes you a wannabe.
>
> >Theism, especially the self-contradictory sort like Puke presents is the
> >"wannabe" position, wanting eternal life when they are already bored
> >with this one.
>
> The only alternative is an eternity in the flames of hell. Your choice.
Pie-in-the-sky versus eternal damnation.
A supposed choice used to frighten babies,
Duke was one of those sucker babies it was sold to.
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Dec 31 2009, 8:37 pm, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
> > "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:ee5bd337-7992-44f2...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Dec 31, 1:54 pm, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Dec 31, 1:35 pm, Olrik<olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Le 2009-12-31 13:20, J a écrit :
>
> > >> >>> I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every
> > >> >>> one of
> > >> >>> you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy,
> > >> >>> and prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>
> > >> >> If you were just a little bit sincere, you'd leave alt.atheism.
> > >> >> That would make us very happy for 2010.
>
> > >> >> So?
>
> > >> > is nothing about it which can't be exhausted in about ten minutes.
>
>
> Okay. Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> religion. Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
> revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
> it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> be too finite and limited to get there.
>
And, giving it an Epic Fail took six seconds.
Given that no religion offers one bit of evidence in support of
it's claims, a skeptical disbelief as a default is entirely
reasonable.
Thus, atheism makes the most sense, given the 100% Epic
Fail record of theism and theists in supporting any of their
claims.
Science, OTOH, comes with evidence, and testing. Duh.
"Militant agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you!"
Andre
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 1, 3:19 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:>
> > Okay. Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> > religion. Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
> > one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
> > revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
> > and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
> > it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> > be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> > That took four minutes.
>
> And, giving it an Epic Fail took six seconds.
Six seconds and neither thought nor argument.
> Given that no religion offers one bit of evidence in support of
> it's claims, a skeptical disbelief as a default is entirely
> reasonable.
Yes, reasonable, but not sufficient to support atheism's "god does not
exist" position. You establish the non-existence of god by attacking
human religions. That they all fail credibility tests tells you
absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of god.
> Thus, atheism makes the most sense, given the 100% Epic
> Fail record of theism and theists in supporting any of their
> claims.
Your atheism is merely politics. You have not and can not establish
anything about the existence or non-existence of god. Feel free to
attempt it here if you like. I'll watch what you say closely.
>
> Science, OTOH, comes with evidence, and testing. Duh.
Science is the use of the scientific method.
> "Militant agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you!"
I know I don't know and invite you to prove the non-existence of god.
Tell us, why is it that no one here addresses the agnostic position.
There is some hot air and off topic chatter, but not one of you
attempts to prove the non-existence of god. Yet it is central to your
doctrine. That's not very tidy in the intellectual sense.
>
> Andre
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:19:24 -0800, iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed religion.
> > Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not one based on
> > knowledge.
>
> Of course Atheism is not based on knowledge, there's absolutely no
> available data sets of God knowledge to duplicate field observations and
> verify the God Hypothesis.
At least none we're aware of now.
And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
God knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can
verify that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the
equivalent of religious faith.
>
> --
> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
teresita
> And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of God
> knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can verify
> that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the equivalent of
> religious faith.
That's not how it works, otherwise we'd be required to account for the
non-existence of UFOs in the absence of UFO data, and the non-existence
of Bigfoot in the absence of Bigfoot data, and so on ad infinitum. When
God parks himself in Earth orbit let us know.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Andre Lieven
BSed:
> On Jan 2, 1:07 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 1, 3:19 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:>
> > > Okay. Atheism requires a leap of faith precisely as does revealed
> > > religion. Just like revealed religion It is a blind faith system, not
> > > one based on knowledge. Therefore it is the intellectual equivalent of
> > > revealed religion and the opposite of the scientific spirit.
>
> > > Agnosticism, however, limits itself to what is known and refuses any
> > > and all leaps of faith. It respects the scientific method. Therefore
> > > it is intellectually superior, morally superior, far more courageous
> > > and at least on the path to truth even if humans in the end prove to
> > > be too finite and limited to get there.
>
> > > That took four minutes.
>
> > And, giving it an Epic Fail took six seconds.
>
> Six seconds and neither thought nor argument.
<Projection>
> > Given that no religion offers one bit of evidence in support of
> > it's claims, a skeptical disbelief as a default is entirely
> > reasonable.
>
> Yes, reasonable, but not sufficient to support atheism's "god does not
> exist" position.
Utterly worng*. Atheism's view that there is no deity is a reasonable
one, just as anyone else's view that fairies do not exist in English
gardens is reasonable, because there is AbZero evidence FOR
either proposition.
Further, your whole screed would, if you had the stones to be honest
and consistent about it, demand that you have to accept Thor, Zeus,
and about 17,998 other deities for which there is *just as much
evidence (IE, NONE) for their existence* as there is for your brand
of sky pixie.
*worng, so bad that it's not even wrong.
> You establish the non-existence of god by attacking
> human religions.
Worng, once again. It's exactly the OTHER way around, and
atheists tend to be as dismissive of other supernatural events
or beings, for the same *reasons* (A total LACK of evidence
for.) as our dismissive view towards fictional sky pixies.
Religion EARNS "attacks" for it's demand that 1) humans
bow to something that does NOT exist, and 2) humans
accept all sorts of evil behavior from religion.
Let us know when the Catholic church starts to hand over
the pedophiles that it is complicit in withholding from the
law, m'kay ?
> That they all fail credibility tests tells you
> absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of god.
Correct. That no sky pixie passes the credibility test nails that
point on it's own.
> > Thus, atheism makes the most sense, given the 100% Epic
> > Fail record of theism and theists in supporting any of their
> > claims.
>
> Your atheism is merely politics. You have not and can not establish
> anything about the existence or non-existence of god.
We DON'T need to, chuckles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Duh !
> Feel free to
> attempt it here if you like. I'll watch what you say closely.
<Laughs> So, the mere fact that NO religion has EVER ponied
up any actual objective evidence FOR any of their claims gets
a Free Pass from you ?
Nice BIAS there, dood.
> > Science, OTOH, comes with evidence, and testing. Duh.
>
> Science is the use of the scientific method.
A method which, more and more, squeezes any "need" for
any magical sky pixie out...
> > "Militant agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you!"
>
> I know I don't know and invite you to prove the non-existence of god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
> Tell us, why is it that no one here addresses the agnostic position.
We have; It's waffling BS. HTH.
> There is some hot air and off topic chatter, but not one of you
> attempts to prove the non-existence of god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Third time.
Fuck, but you are stoopid...
> Yet it is central to your doctrine.
Worng. What is "central" to atheism is the simple fact that
NO religion CAN support it's supernatural (Or, for that matter,
any of it's related natural claims...) claims with evidence.
> That's not very tidy in the intellectual sense.
That's agnosticism.
Andre
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:48:11 -0800 (PST), "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Not shown so by anyone here.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 1, 9:46 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:04:56 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
> > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Jan 1, 3:34 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >> Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
> > >> position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
>
> > >> We'll see where this will go.
>
> > >> We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
> > >> their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
> > >> what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
> > >> opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
> > >> stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
> > >> known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
> > >> they suspend judgment.
>
> > >You are equivocating between the terms "faith" and "belief" and they
> > >are not the same
You're right, I have used them interchangeably, but that's because
that's how they are used among religious people. Everyone has beliefs.
Religious people and atheists have faith.
>
> > >Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
> > >is no reason to believe in god(s).
But there is no reason to rule-out the existence of god. That's your
logical flaw.
>
> > I've never understood why believers and agnostics imagine that the
> > real world method of dealing with unsupported claims about something
> > that isn't even necessary, is to assume the opposite until evidence is
> > forthcoming.
But atheists rule out something without evidence and therefore are
doing it on faith. It's elementary. Why not just admit it? You can
still "behave" as if non-existence were proved. None of you gives a
damn about philosophy anyway. You're into bashing religious people.
You'd be out of work if guys like Ike didn't show up.
> > This is not a belief, faith, or any of the other things they project
> > because they can't see beyond the ends of their noses.
What a great proof! When you can't deal with an idea you allege your
opponent has defective vision.
> It's like you said before. They're seeing it from inside their box and
> they can't grasp the fact that we're not in their box. We're outside
> of it.
Precisely so, but you're wrong in trying to turn a failure of logic
into a virtue.
> It's not a hard concept to grasp but one has to be willing to learn to
> understand it and that's where they fail. They embrace their
> ignorance.
I'll embrace YOUR ignorance: Prove that god can not exist.
coaste...@yahoo.com
It was a disconnected thrash-about which scrupulously avoided the
question of god's existence.
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Is there any reason to think that any gods exist? Is there any evidence
for any gods?
coaste...@yahoo.com
Well, *you atheists choose* to take the position that god doesn't
exist. You have to live with the amusing absurdity of atheists being
forced to rely on essentially religious faith to support their central
doctrine. That's rich.
Trance Gemini
wrote:
> On Jan 1, 1:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 1, 9:46 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:04:56 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
> > > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jan 1, 3:34 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > >> Of course it is. It must be. The alternative would be to take a
> > > >> position on faith. And that lumps you in with the religionists.
>
> > > >> We'll see where this will go.
>
> > > >> We've been there already. In saying God does not exist, atheists base
> > > >> their position on a leap of faith, not on knowledge. That's precisely
> > > >> what religionists do. It's just that their leap of faith heads in the
> > > >> opposite direction, that God does exist. In both cases these cop outs
> > > >> stem from a failure of nerve. Agnostics limit themselves to what is
> > > >> known. They can neither confirm nor deny that God exists. Therefore
> > > >> they suspend judgment.
>
> > > >You are equivocating between the terms "faith" and "belief" and they
> > > >are not the same
>
> You're right, I have used them interchangeably, but that's because
> that's how they are used among religious people. Everyone has beliefs.
> Religious people and atheists have faith.
So, you're using them incorrectly because some religious people
conflate them in order to make statements like the one you're making
fallaciously.
That makes no sense.
>
> > > >Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
> > > >is no reason to believe in god(s).
>
> But there is no reason to rule-out the existence of god. That's your
> logical flaw.
Not having a reason to believe doesn't constitute "rule-out the
existence of god".
It simply states that unless theists can give us a reason to believe,
you know, like proving gods exist, we have no reason to take it
seriously or give a shit.
No logical flaw there. Sorry.
> > > I've never understood why believers and agnostics imagine that the
> > > real world method of dealing with unsupported claims about something
> > > that isn't even necessary, is to assume the opposite until evidence is
> > > forthcoming.
>
> But atheists rule out something without evidence and therefore are
> doing it on faith. It's elementary. Why not just admit it? You can
> still "behave" as if non-existence were proved. None of you gives a
> damn about philosophy anyway. You're into bashing religious people.
> You'd be out of work if guys like Ike didn't show up.
See above. And I only bash religious people when they try to impose
their ridiculous superstitions on me in some way.
In addition, you're responding to Christopher's comment not mine.
Please don't do that. It's confusing for readers.
>
> > > This is not a belief, faith, or any of the other things they project
> > > because they can't see beyond the ends of their noses.
>
> What a great proof! When you can't deal with an idea you allege your
> opponent has defective vision.
No. You've demonstrated through your posts that you have defective
vision. Anyway I didn't say that. Please learn to read posts. That
comment was from Christopher.
Of course, I do agree with what Christopher said but one should be
careful on news groups to attribute quotes correctly.
It pisses people off when you don't.
>
> > It's like you said before. They're seeing it from inside their box and
> > they can't grasp the fact that we're not in their box. We're outside
> > of it.
>
> Precisely so, but you're wrong in trying to turn a failure of logic
> into a virtue.
It's your failure of logic not ours and it's based on your conflation
of two terms simply because the religious conflate them and you appear
to think that's okay.
IMO, it's much more constructive not to accept these nonsensical
definitions of language which the religious try to impose on us so
that communication can remain effective and rational.
>
> > It's not a hard concept to grasp but one has to be willing to learn to
> > understand it and that's where they fail. They embrace their
> > ignorance.
>
> I'll embrace YOUR ignorance: Prove that god can not exist.
Not my problem. I don't care if gods exist. If a theist can prove one
does I'll believe it.
Until then I'm not interested.
teresita
> Well, *you atheists choose* to take the position that god doesn't exist.
> You have to live with the amusing absurdity of atheists being forced to
> rely on essentially religious faith to support their central doctrine.
> That's rich.
Well you *Xena denialists choose* to take the position that the Warrior
Princess doesn't exist. You have to live with the amazing absurdity of
Xena denialists being forced to rely on essentially religious faith to
support their central doctrine. That's rich.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Pink Freud
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:022fc25e-eb6f-4f09...@upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 10:58 am, teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:55:13 -0800, iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of God
>> > knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can verify
>> > that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the equivalent of
>> > religious faith.
>>
>> That's not how it works, otherwise we'd be required to account for the
>> non-existence of UFOs in the absence of UFO data, and the non-existence
>> of Bigfoot in the absence of Bigfoot data, and so on ad infinitum. When
>> God parks himself in Earth orbit let us know.
>>
>> --
>> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
>
> Well, *you atheists choose* to take the position that god doesn't
> exist.
<eyeroll>
Spare me.
Do *you choose* to take the position that unicorns don't exist? Or is it
simply common sense?
> You have to live with the amusing absurdity of atheists being
> forced to rely on essentially religious faith to support their central
> doctrine. That's rich.
No. Athiests are not religious.
That's kind of what the word means. But congratulations in being sucked into
one of the oldest and most successfully refuted canards ever.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 09:52:56 -0800 (PST), "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Not that I'm aware of.
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Jan 2, 10:58�am, teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:55:13 -0800, iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of God
>> > knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can verify
>> > that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the equivalent of
>> > religious faith.
>>
>> That's not how it works, otherwise we'd be required to account for the
>> non-existence of UFOs in the absence of UFO data, and the non-existence
>> of Bigfoot in the absence of Bigfoot data, and so on ad infinitum. �When
>> God parks himself in Earth orbit let us know.
>>
>> --
>> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
>
>Well, *you atheists choose* to take the position that god doesn't
>exist.
No, we choose to take the position that we do not believe in any gods.
> You have to live with the amusing absurdity of atheists being
>forced to rely on essentially religious faith to support their central
>doctrine. That's rich.
Your ignorance and unwillingness to correct your errors is noted and
will be treated with the respect you have earned.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:21:09 -0800, iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Well, *you atheists choose* to take the position that god doesn't exist.
> > You have to live with the amusing absurdity of atheists being forced to
> > rely on essentially religious faith to support their central doctrine.
> > That's rich.
>
> Well you *Xena denialists choose* to take the position that the Warrior
> Princess doesn't exist.
Certainly, we join the atheists in rejecting the existence of all man-
made gods. There is sufficient evidence on the human condition to rule
all of them out. I've done that since the age of thirteen. However,
that obviously doesn't cover the full range of possibilities. Mankind
is finite and limited. It is hopelessly provincial in the universal
sense.
You have to live with the amazing absurdity of
> Xena denialists being forced to rely on essentially religious faith to
> support their central doctrine.
No, the myth of Xena is man-made. Human knowledge is sufficient to
label it obvious bullshit on par with burning bushes and golden
tablets from Mt. Sinai. None of this helps you with the logical defect
in your position. Just give up on "God doesn't exist". You simply
don't know that. Take the honest path of admitting you don't. You can
still decide as a matter of policy to operate as if he, she or it
doesn't exist. You can base it on what you think is its improbability.
You can still bash Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. That's what
you get off on anyway.
That's rich.
>
> --
> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Alan Ford
> And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
> God knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can
> verify that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the
> equivalent of religious faith.
Yup, and likewise, until you can verify that Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
your doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
And likewise, until you can verify that Santa Claus doesn't exist, your
doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
And likewise, until you can verify that vampires don't exist, your
doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
And likewise, until you can verify that Odin doesn't exist, your
doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
Repeat a few thousand times.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> iconocl...@yahoo.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> > And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
> > God knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can
> > verify that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the
> > equivalent of religious faith.
>
> Yup, and likewise, until you can verify that Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
> your doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
Nope. The Easter Bunny is well within human knowledge. The non-
existence of God is not.
> And likewise, until you can verify that Santa Claus doesn't exist, your
> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> And likewise, until you can verify that vampires don't exist, your
> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> And likewise, until you can verify that Odin doesn't exist, your
> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> Repeat a few thousand times.
Earth's religions are man-made. None is credible based on human
knowledge. However, human knowledge is painfully limited.
Open up your mind. Surely you can see a distinction between what we
products of evolution on an obscure planet circling a minor sun in a
remote backwater of our universe know and what we don't or can't know.
What you're not accepting is the finite and limited nature of mankind
and of human knowledge. That's unjustified hubris, something to be
avoided like plague. We're not even sure yet whether our immense
universe is simply one of millions . And YOU want to say that god
doesn't exist while your equally finite and limited religious
opponents what to say the opposite. Both of you are foolish.
coaste...@yahoo.com
coaste...@yahoo.com
Not really. I mean faith in our context. But you atheists *believe*
god doesn't exist. It's your central tenet. Religionists on the other
hand *believe* god does exist. Both operate on what we call faith, a
blind acceptance of a proposition which is unknown or unknowable.
Don't quibble about word usage. There is plenty of room to work out
the infelicities of the language. The key is in the meantime to keep
your eye on the ball.
>
>
>
> > > > >Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
> > > > >is no reason to believe in god(s).
>
> > But there is no reason to rule-out the existence of god. That's your
> > logical flaw.
>
> Not having a reason to believe doesn't constitute "rule-out the
> existence of god".
I'm glad to hear you say that.
>
> It simply states that unless theists can give us a reason to believe,
> you know, like proving gods exist, we have no reason to take it
> seriously or give a shit.
The burden is not on theists. They just do their own thing. They
believe it. They don't have to explain it to you. But their logical
flaw is the mirror image of yours. Your positions are opposite and
neither of you can escape the fact that they both are based on faith.
> No logical flaw there. Sorry.
Unargued assertions are not are not worth the price of admission.
> > > > I've never understood why believers and agnostics imagine that the
> > > > real world method of dealing with unsupported claims about something
> > > > that isn't even necessary, is to assume the opposite until evidence is
> > > > forthcoming.
>
> > But atheists rule out something without evidence and therefore are
> > doing it on faith. It's elementary. Why not just admit it? You can
> > still "behave" as if non-existence were proved. None of you gives a
> > damn about philosophy anyway. You're into bashing religious people.
> > You'd be out of work if guys like Ike didn't show up.
>
> See above. And I only bash religious people when they try to impose
> their ridiculous superstitions on me in some way.
Come on, you guys are militant. You think of it as a movement. After
all it's an "ism".
> In addition, you're responding to Christopher's comment not mine.
>
> Please don't do that. It's confusing for readers.
No it isn't. It's efficient. It gets a lot done with far less effort.
Everyone can see clearly on the page who is being replied to. The
ideas are what matter.
>
>
> > > > This is not a belief, faith, or any of the other things they project
> > > > because they can't see beyond the ends of their noses.
>
> > What a great proof! When you can't deal with an idea you allege your
> > opponent has defective vision.
>
> No. You've demonstrated through your posts that you have defective
> vision. Anyway I didn't say that. Please learn to read posts. That
> comment was from Christopher.
Of course it was, it had four chevrons......Don't feel you have any
responsibility for what I say to Christopher in the same post in which
I reply to you. This is a conversation among many people, most of whom
read all the posts in the thread. Be practical.
> Of course, I do agree with what Christopher said but one should be
> careful on news groups to attribute quotes correctly.
>
> It pisses people off when you don't.
I don't attribute quotes incorrectly. I respond to ideas. I don't much
care whose they are if they are interesting. You can clip
Christopher's work from your posts if you like. That will certainly
solve your problem. But if you don't and what he says is interesting
to me I'll reply to it. As to netiquette, I suggest that you take a
look at what walksalone has done to my primary post in this thread. He
has broken into the middle of nearly every sentence I wrote. It is a
grotesque violation of basic civility to butcher your opponent's text,
far worse than the epidemic of clipping we see everywhere.
> > > It's like you said before. They're seeing it from inside their box and
> > > they can't grasp the fact that we're not in their box. We're outside
> > > of it.
>
> > Precisely so, but you're wrong in trying to turn a failure of logic
> > into a virtue.
>
> It's your failure of logic not ours and it's based on your conflation
> of two terms simply because the religious conflate them and you appear
> to think that's okay.
Atheists both believe and and take on faith the alleged fact that god
doesn't exist. Don't make a big deal about it. It's a distinction
without much of an operative difference. If on occasion it matters
just point it out. In normal discourse it does not. We all know what
is meant.
>
> IMO, it's much more constructive not to accept these nonsensical
> definitions of language which the religious try to impose on us so
> that communication can remain effective and rational.
I'm not doing that so don't sweat it.
> > > It's not a hard concept to grasp but one has to be willing to learn to
> > > understand it and that's where they fail. They embrace their
> > > ignorance.
>
> > I'll embrace YOUR ignorance: Prove that god can not exist.
>
> Not my problem. I don't care if gods exist. If a theist can prove one
> does I'll believe it.
>
> Until then I'm not interested.
You're not an atheist. Congratulations.
Hannele
wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:21:09 -0800 (PST), "icono...@yahoo.com"
> <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> On Jan 2, 10:58 am, teresita <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:55:13 -0800, iconocl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> > And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
>>> God
>>> > knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can verify
>>> > that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the equivalent of
>>> > religious faith.
>>>
>>> That's not how it works, otherwise we'd be required to account for the
>>> non-existence of UFOs in the absence of UFO data, and the non-existence
>>> of Bigfoot in the absence of Bigfoot data, and so on ad infinitum.
>>> When
>>> God parks himself in Earth orbit let us know.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Teresitahttp://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
>>
>> Well, *you atheists choose* to take the position that god doesn't
>> exist.
>
> No, we choose to take the position that we do not believe in any gods.
>
I never did: the non-belief crept up on me. It was no choice, I just
happened to lose my faith. <shrug>
>> You have to live with the amusing absurdity of atheists being
>> forced to rely on essentially religious faith to support their central
>> doctrine. That's rich.
>
> Your ignorance and unwillingness to correct your errors is noted and
> will be treated with the respect you have earned.
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
There are at least as many gods as there are believers.
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Jan 2, 2:18�pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>> iconocl...@yahoo.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>>
>> > And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
>> > God knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can
>> > verify that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the
>> > equivalent of religious faith.
>>
>> Yup, and likewise, until you can verify that Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
>> your doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
>Nope. The Easter Bunny is well within human knowledge. The non-
>existence of God is not.
Show us, O brilliant sage.
>> And likewise, until you can verify that Santa Claus doesn't exist, your
>> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>>
>> And likewise, until you can verify that vampires don't exist, your
>> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>>
>> And likewise, until you can verify that Odin doesn't exist, your
>> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>>
>> Repeat a few thousand times.
>
>Earth's religions are man-made. None is credible based on human
>knowledge. However, human knowledge is painfully limited.
So, if claims about gods do not come from religions, where do they come
from?
Trance Gemini
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 1:25 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 12:51 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
<snipped>
> > > You're right, I have used them interchangeably, but that's because
> > > that's how they are used among religious people. Everyone has beliefs.
> > > Religious people and atheists have faith.
>
> > So, you're using them incorrectly because some religious people
> > conflate them in order to make statements like the one you're making
> > fallaciously.
>
> > That makes no sense.
>
> Not really. I mean faith in our context.
Atheists don't have faith in gods or their non-existence.
We have no reason to believe in their existence until a theist can
prove their existence or a god demonstrates it exists.
Until that moment gods are quite irrelevant to most of us.
> But you atheists *believe*
> god doesn't exist.
Given that *I'm* the atheist here I'd appreciate it if you stopped
telling me what the fuck I believe and LISTEN to me when I tell you
what the fuck I believe.
> It's your central tenet. Religionists on the other
> hand *believe* god does exist. Both operate on what we call faith, a
> blind acceptance of a proposition which is unknown or unknowable.
>
> Don't quibble about word usage. There is plenty of room to work out
> the infelicities of the language. The key is in the meantime to keep
> your eye on the ball.
Not when the words are grossly misused in this way and mean very
different things than those attributed to them.
If you have any interest whatsoever in rational communication then you
should use the words correctly.
>
> > > > > >Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
> > > > > >is no reason to believe in god(s).
>
> > > But there is no reason to rule-out the existence of god. That's your
> > > logical flaw.
>
> > Not having a reason to believe doesn't constitute "rule-out the
> > existence of god".
>
> I'm glad to hear you say that.
Most atheists would say that.
Unless of course we're talking about a specific and clearly defined
god like the Abrahamic God.
That one *can* be falsified and demonstrated not to exist as can other
defined gods.
Undefined gods, of course, cannot be falsified for obvious reasons.
>
> > It simply states that unless theists can give us a reason to believe,
> > you know, like proving gods exist, we have no reason to take it
> > seriously or give a shit.
>
> The burden is not on theists.
It is when they want to impose their beliefs on us. Then they have to
demonstrate that their god exists.
I want proof and without it I have no reason to believe and am
perfectly content in my non belief.
>They just do their own thing.
Which planet do you come from?
>They
> believe it. They don't have to explain it to you. But their logical
> flaw is the mirror image of yours. Your positions are opposite and
> neither of you can escape the fact that they both are based on faith.
Repeatedly making this bare assertion despite many explanations from
people who are atheists on why it's fallacious is not going to make it
any more true.
It is just as fallacious now as it was when you first asserted it.
>
> > No logical flaw there. Sorry.
>
> Unargued assertions are not are not worth the price of admission.
Ignoring arguments are not worth the price of admission.
>
> > > > > I've never understood why believers and agnostics imagine that the
> > > > > real world method of dealing with unsupported claims about something
> > > > > that isn't even necessary, is to assume the opposite until evidence is
> > > > > forthcoming.
>
> > > But atheists rule out something without evidence and therefore are
> > > doing it on faith. It's elementary. Why not just admit it? You can
> > > still "behave" as if non-existence were proved. None of you gives a
> > > damn about philosophy anyway. You're into bashing religious people.
> > > You'd be out of work if guys like Ike didn't show up.
>
> > See above. And I only bash religious people when they try to impose
> > their ridiculous superstitions on me in some way.
>
> Come on, you guys are militant. You think of it as a movement. After
> all it's an "ism".
No. Actually we don't. Atheists are building communities but the
movements that are occurring are movements to promote Materialism,
Rationalism and Secularism.
Not all atheists, particularly Superstitious atheists are going to
agree with or be part of those movements.
>
> > In addition, you're responding to Christopher's comment not mine.
>
> > Please don't do that. It's confusing for readers.
>
> No it isn't. It's efficient. It gets a lot done with far less effort.
> Everyone can see clearly on the page who is being replied to. The
> ideas are what matter.
And Christopher can't reply because he doesn't know you're commenting
on what he said.
That's considered quite dishonest and you should stop it.
>
> > > > > This is not a belief, faith, or any of the other things they project
> > > > > because they can't see beyond the ends of their noses.
>
> > > What a great proof! When you can't deal with an idea you allege your
> > > opponent has defective vision.
>
> > No. You've demonstrated through your posts that you have defective
> > vision. Anyway I didn't say that. Please learn to read posts. That
> > comment was from Christopher.
>
> Of course it was, it had four chevrons......Don't feel you have any
> responsibility for what I say to Christopher in the same post in which
> I reply to you. This is a conversation among many people, most of whom
> read all the posts in the thread. Be practical.
Be honest and respectful and give Christopher the opportunity to
respond directly to your comments instead of dishonestly hiding your
comments in my posts.
Actually I am. And if you'd listen for a change you might find out
exactly what an atheist and an agnostic are and understand what I'm
talking about when I identify myself as an:
Apatheist agnostic atheist.
As long you continue to wallow in your ignorance and not pay attention
to what people are trying to tell you, you will not be able to
understand any of this.
And for your information, I walked onto my other site with much the
same arguments as you are giving now.
The difference between you and me is that I didn't have the arrogance
to assume that I was right and I took the time to listen to the
explanations people gave, discuss them honestly, ask questions, etc.
That process is called learning.
You might want to give a try.
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Jan 2, 1:25�pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
You keep saying that as if you have been unable to read any of the
corrections that have been offered to you. It is clear that you are not
even trying to act as if you are honest here.
> It's your central tenet. Religionists on the other
>hand *believe* god does exist. Both operate on what we call faith, a
>blind acceptance of a proposition which is unknown or unknowable.
I realize that critical thinking has proven beyond you in this
discussion up to this point, but "I do not believe in any gods" is not
the same as "I believe there are no gods."
Feel free to let us know when you manage to master the subtleties
involved.
>Don't quibble about word usage.
No, we should leave that to you so you can claim victory.
>There is plenty of room to work out
>the infelicities of the language. The key is in the meantime to keep
>your eye on the ball.
You failed.
>> > > > >Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
>> > > > >is no reason to believe in god(s).
>>
>> > But there is no reason to rule-out the existence of god. That's your
>> > logical flaw.
>>
>> Not having a reason to believe doesn't constitute "rule-out the
>> existence of god".
>
>I'm glad to hear you say that.
>
>>
>> It simply states that unless theists can give us a reason to believe,
>> you know, like proving gods exist, we have no reason to take it
>> seriously or give a shit.
>
>The burden is not on theists. They just do their own thing. They
>believe it. They don't have to explain it to you. But their logical
>flaw is the mirror image of yours. Your positions are opposite and
>neither of you can escape the fact that they both are based on faith.
Only because you insist on inventing a flawed definition of atheism.
Your logical flaw is your problem, not mine.
>> No logical flaw there. Sorry.
>
>Unargued assertions are not are not worth the price of admission.
Then you are still in the parking lot looking for your ticket.
>> > > > I've never understood why believers and agnostics imagine that the
>> > > > real world method of dealing with unsupported claims about something
>> > > > that isn't even necessary, is to assume the opposite until evidence is
>> > > > forthcoming.
>>
>> > But atheists rule out something without evidence and therefore are
>> > doing it on faith. It's elementary. Why not just admit it? You can
>> > still "behave" as if non-existence were proved. None of you gives a
>> > damn about philosophy anyway. You're into bashing religious people.
>> > You'd be out of work if guys like Ike didn't show up.
>>
>> See above. And I only bash religious people when they try to impose
>> their ridiculous superstitions on me in some way.
>
>Come on, you guys are militant. You think of it as a movement. After
>all it's an "ism".
Now you are really being foolish.
>> In addition, you're responding to Christopher's comment not mine.
>>
>> Please don't do that. It's confusing for readers.
>
>No it isn't. It's efficient. It gets a lot done with far less effort.
>Everyone can see clearly on the page who is being replied to. The
>ideas are what matter.
You make false claims and whine when people call you on it. It would be
even more efficient if you knew what you were talking about and took
correction when you made an error.
....
Alan Ford
> Certainly, we join the atheists in rejecting the existence of all man-
> made gods.
[snip]
> No, the myth of Xena is man-made. Human knowledge is sufficient to
> label it obvious bullshit on par with burning bushes and golden
> tablets from Mt. Sinai. None of this helps you with the logical defect
> in your position. Just give up on "God doesn't exist". You simply
> don't know that.
[snip]
Ah, the special pleading. All gods are man made except yours. Thanks for
the heads up.
Alan Ford
>>> And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
>>> God knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can
>>> verify that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the
>>> equivalent of religious faith.
>> Yup, and likewise, until you can verify that Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
>> your doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> Nope. The Easter Bunny is well within human knowledge. The non-
> existence of God is not.
Who says so? Here you go and introduce an imaginary being that no one
has ever heard, seen, smelled, touched, tasted or experienced in any
other physical way, and your argument for being unable to do so is
twofold: that he's special and that his being special not only makes him
and you immune to your burden of proof, but that the same burden of
proof somehow magically shifts to those of us who dismiss your god as well.
>
>> And likewise, until you can verify that Santa Claus doesn't exist, your
>> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>>
>> And likewise, until you can verify that vampires don't exist, your
>> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>>
>> And likewise, until you can verify that Odin doesn't exist, your
>> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>>
>> Repeat a few thousand times.
>
> Earth's religions are man-made. None is credible based on human
> knowledge. However, human knowledge is painfully limited.
This is meaningless metaphysical garbage, as well as an argument from
ignorance, i.e. the standard god of the gaps. But again, *your* god of
the gaps is somehow special.
>
> Open up your mind. Surely you can see a distinction between what we
> products of evolution on an obscure planet circling a minor sun in a
> remote backwater of our universe know and what we don't or can't know.
And this, you imagine, gives you license to go around inventing
imaginary beings that you cover by special pleading and by demanding
evidence for your imaginary being's non-existence from us?
> What you're not accepting is the finite and limited nature of mankind
> and of human knowledge. That's unjustified hubris, something to be
> avoided like plague. We're not even sure yet whether our immense
> universe is simply one of millions . And YOU want to say that god
> doesn't exist while your equally finite and limited religious
> opponents what to say the opposite. Both of you are foolish.
Yes, I want to say that your god doesn't exist on the same basis that I
dismiss the thousands of other gods and imaginary beings that any man,
woman or child has ever imagined: no evidence whatsoever. Until you
provide the evidence for your god, hod, iod, jod, kod, lod, mod, pod,
qod, rod or whatever else you want to call it, it remains the product of
your imagination.
Now, of course, your response will be to call us atheists "believers"
because we "believe" that your god, hod, iod, jod, kod, lod, mod, pod,
qod, rod or whatever else does not exist, while maintaining with a
straight face that your figment of imagination is special and others are
"man made".
Ridiculous.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 12:01:42 -0800 (PST), "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >On Jan 2, 2:18 pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> iconocl...@yahoo.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> >> > And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
> >> > God knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can
> >> > verify that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the
> >> > equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> Yup, and likewise, until you can verify that Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
> >> your doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >Nope. The Easter Bunny is well within human knowledge. The non-
> >existence of God is not.
>
> Show us, O brilliant sage.
>
> >> And likewise, until you can verify that Santa Claus doesn't exist, your
> >> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> And likewise, until you can verify that vampires don't exist, your
> >> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> And likewise, until you can verify that Odin doesn't exist, your
> >> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> Repeat a few thousand times.
>
> >Earth's religions are man-made. None is credible based on human
> >knowledge. However, human knowledge is painfully limited.
>
> So, if claims about gods do not come from religions, where do they come
> from?
Is this the chicken and egg thing?
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
It's the implication of your claims. You tell me.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 2, 3:46 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 1:25 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 2, 12:51 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > > You're right, I have used them interchangeably, but that's because
> > > > that's how they are used among religious people. Everyone has beliefs.
> > > > Religious people and atheists have faith.
>
> > > So, you're using them incorrectly because some religious people
> > > conflate them in order to make statements like the one you're making
> > > fallaciously.
>
> > > That makes no sense.
>
> > Not really. I mean faith in our context.
>
> Atheists don't have faith in gods or their non-existence.
Then you are all agnostics. Welcome to the fold!
> We have no reason to believe in their existence until a theist can
> prove their existence or a god demonstrates it exists.
You simply don't know whether one or another exists and are going to
suspend judgment until evidence turns up. Congratulations. Welcome to
the ranks of agnostics. Atheism doesn't exist!
> Until that moment gods are quite irrelevant to most of us.
And to agnostics I assure you.
> > But you atheists *believe*
> > god doesn't exist.
>
> Given that *I'm* the atheist here I'd appreciate it if you stopped
> telling me what the fuck I believe and LISTEN to me when I tell you
> what the fuck I believe.
That would be appropriate if you knew that you are an agnostic.
> > It's your central tenet. Religionists on the other
> > hand *believe* god does exist. Both operate on what we call faith, a
> > blind acceptance of a proposition which is unknown or unknowable.
>
> > Don't quibble about word usage. There is plenty of room to work out
> > the infelicities of the language. The key is in the meantime to keep
> > your eye on the ball.
>
> Not when the words are grossly misused in this way and mean very
> different things than those attributed to them.
You suspend judgment until god parks in earth orbit and is seen from
the Hubbell telescope.
> If you have any interest whatsoever in rational communication then you
> should use the words correctly.
They're hopelessly scrambled in common parlance. Al long as we
understand each other we'll do fine.
> > > > > > >Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
> > > > > > >is no reason to believe in god(s).
But you acknowledge an outside possibility that god(s) exist. In the
interim you suspend judgment. You are agnostics.
> > > > But there is no reason to rule-out the existence of god. That's your
> > > > logical flaw.
> > > Not having a reason to believe doesn't constitute "rule-out the
> > > existence of god".
Excellent, your are agnostics, not atheists. I'm on the brink of an
earth-shattering philosophical innovation. I'll be enshrined in
Wikipedia and become a good, solid, black letter footnote in the
history of Western Philosophy.
> > I'm glad to hear you say that.
>
> Most atheists would say that.
Even better, you have broad support in the rank and file. Welcome to
agnosticism.
> Unless of course we're talking about a specific and clearly defined
> god like the Abrahamic God.
Heavens! Who would do that!?
> That one *can* be falsified and demonstrated not to exist as can other
> defined gods.
Precisely.
> Undefined gods, of course, cannot be falsified for obvious reasons.
Exactly our position. And if you are to argue that they are falsified
you are are doing it as an article of faith. I'm glad you arrived.
Walksaloned simply does not comprehend.
> > > It simply states that unless theists can give us a reason to believe,
> > > you know, like proving gods exist, we have no reason to take it
> > > seriously or give a shit.
>
> > The burden is not on theists.
>
> It is when they want to impose their beliefs on us. Then they have to
> demonstrate that their god exists.
Naw, they all have their man-made gods. They're not out hunting for
new ones. They are self-satisfied.
> I want proof and without it I have no reason to believe and am
> perfectly content in my non belief.
Yes, of course, you are an agnostic and have suspended judgment on
matters which are unknown or unknowable.
But if you do entertain this interim guess that there is no god in the
universe, just remember that you take it on something akin to
intuition. You do it without evidence. You must say that, "I don't
believe in presently unknown god(s) but that's just a guess on my part
because it's part of the unknown." You have still suspended ultimate
judgement because you are willing to change that guess upon receipt of
evidence. Welcome to agnosticism. Raise a glass. I make the same guess
you do. And like you, I am nevertheless clearly an agnostic.
> Which planet do you come from?
Iconoclastius. I won't disclose the system or galaxy for security
reasons but I do assure you that my homies resolved this silly dispute
aeons ago. Atheism is no longer a valid subject of discussion. It has
itself been ruled-out.
> >They
> > believe it. They don't have to explain it to you. But their logical
> > flaw is the mirror image of yours. Your positions are opposite and
> > neither of you can escape the fact that they both are based on faith.
>
> Repeatedly making this bare assertion despite many explanations from
> people who are atheists on why it's fallacious is not going to make it
> any more true.
You have made the clearest explanation, and you, my friend, are an
agnostic.
> It is just as fallacious now as it was when you first asserted it.
On the contrary, you've done a wonderful job of making the argument
for agnosticism. Congratulations again.
> > > No logical flaw there. Sorry.
>
> > Unargued assertions are not are not worth the price of admission.
>
> Ignoring arguments are not worth the price of admission.
I'm not precisely ignoring walksalone. I will answer him when he stops
butchering my prose.
> > > > > > I've never understood why believers and agnostics imagine that the
> > > > > > real world method of dealing with unsupported claims about something
> > > > > > that isn't even necessary, is to assume the opposite until evidence is
> > > > > > forthcoming.
>
> > > > But atheists rule out something without evidence and therefore are
> > > > doing it on faith. It's elementary. Why not just admit it? You can
> > > > still "behave" as if non-existence were proved. None of you gives a
> > > > damn about philosophy anyway. You're into bashing religious people.
> > > > You'd be out of work if guys like Ike didn't show up.
>
> > > See above. And I only bash religious people when they try to impose
> > > their ridiculous superstitions on me in some way.
>
> > Come on, you guys are militant. You think of it as a movement. After
> > all it's an "ism".
>
> No. Actually we don't. Atheists are building communities but the
> movements that are occurring are movements to promote Materialism,
> Rationalism and Secularism.
Habitat for Humanity is a movement.
> Not all atheists, particularly Superstitious atheists are going to
> agree with or be part of those movements.
Isn't "superstitious atheists" contradictory?
> > > In addition, you're responding to Christopher's comment not mine.
>
> > > Please don't do that. It's confusing for readers.
>
> > No it isn't. It's efficient. It gets a lot done with far less effort.
> > Everyone can see clearly on the page who is being replied to. The
> > ideas are what matter.
>
> And Christopher can't reply because he doesn't know you're commenting
> on what he said.
>
> That's considered quite dishonest and you should stop it.
Nonsense. He'll read the thread if he's interested in it. This stuff
is ephemera.
Well done. I'm making progress. Is there an
alt.apatheist.agnostic.atheist group? In any event you'll now
acknowledge that I have rooted out the agnostic in you.
> As long you continue to wallow in your ignorance and not pay attention
> to what people are trying to tell you, you will not be able to
> understand any of this.
As I say, I'll respond to walksalone when he stoops butchering my
prose. Apatheist agnostic atheist. Excellent.
> And for your information, I walked onto my other site with much the
> same arguments as you are giving now.
Apatheist agnostic atheist. Progress!
> The difference between you and me is that I didn't have the arrogance
> to assume that I was right and I took the time to listen to the
> explanations people gave, discuss them honestly, ask questions, etc.
> That process is called learning.
> You might want to give a try.
I engage in the process every day. Here, you're the first to give it a
new turn. See you later.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:62fa9591-3631-4425...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Jan 1, 6:58 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> >> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:0e61ac03-33
> > 76-490d-
>
> >> snip
>
> snip excess verbosity
>
> >> > That took four minutes.
>
> >> >> > Okay. Athiesm requires a leap of faith precisely as does
> >> >> > revealed religion.
>
> >> > Atheism requires a leap of faith because we can not rule out the
> >> > existence of God. To be an atheist one must accept on faith that
> >> > God doesn't exist even though that is unknowable.
>
> >> What is known, is no god fits the requirements of its followers, and
> >> in fact, frequently in a diametrically opposed to the claims made on
> >> his behalf.
>
> > I am an agnostic. You, an atheist, are making an argument against the
>
> You may call yourself whatever flatters you, but when it comes to
> knowing of what you claim, ignorant is the correct word. Why should I
> believe you are agnostic when you act like a follower of the revealed
> gods of the deseert? I spould not & don't.
>
> > religious, your leap-of-faith brothers. My position is not touched by
>
> No, I am not. & this is one of the buttresses of your song & dance. I
> don't even concern myself with your fantasies. Now what part of a lack
> of belief [an active mental activity] is it that eludes you? I feel
> safe you got all of it up to a l,ack of belief.
>
> > arguments against religion's gods. We acknowledge that we don't know
>
> I posit no arguments against your fairy tale, why qwould I. I am adult
> enough to not ony accept your abbertaion as beiong your right, but
> tolerate it as well. Untill you insist, as in this instance, that I
> don't know what I do & do not hold a belief in. Or try & inject your
> beliefs into politics or education. Then you are fair game.
>
> > whether god or gods exist or not and won't take either position on
> > presumption or faith.
>
> But ylou have, you believe at least one god exists. Otherwise you would
> not be concerned with the question. It's rather simple really. Of
> course, maybe that is to simple, for you.
>
> snip
>
> >> of course, you have never read the Greek Testaments. And if you
> >> haven't,
> > do
> >> not even qualified to speak on the subject. And then we have the last
> >> and most violent of all, the replacement for Yahweh, commonly
> >> referred to as Allah.
>
> > Again you are rehearsing your oft repeated argument against the
>
> The argumnt is not generic, any god who has followers that make claims
> omn tgheir behalf are subject to the same scrutiny. Yours ikncluded.
>
>
>
> > existence of a particular god. That doesn't help you a bit opposite an
> > agnostic. I don't know of the existence of any god, so you attack a
> > strawman, not me.
>
> >> In those particular issues, as well as a multitude of other gods, it
> >> can
> > be
> >> shown that they do not exist as described. Therefore, there is no
> >> sense i
> > n
> >> even considering the question. After all, I'm certain you're not
> >> concerne
> > d
> >> whether or not any of the following gods are readily available for
> >> worshi
> > p.
>
> > You continue to argue against some third party, an imaginary debater,
> > not against me. I don't accept any of mankind's gods either. They are
>
> No, I'm not argueing with youi or anyon ele. I am simply rubbing your
> nose in your own mess. A mess yolu were not obliged to make, but wanted
> to. & did. You know what I mean Vern?
>
> > not evidence for the existence of god. They are evidence of man's
> > struggle to transcend the limits of his knowledge.
>
> Not really, they are the over active imaginations of primitives whose
> offspring may live in better conditions. But still share the fears of
> their ancestors. Now, you can pretend to seek knowledge of the gods,
> which is a farce in its own right, or you can study the claims for the
> gods & have to smile when someone pretends to be agnostic.
>
> > What you are not addressing is my central point, that you atheists get
> > to the "god doesn't exist" position by assumption, by faith, and not
>
> A false claim no honest or knowledgeable person would front. Why not
> you ask, atheism requires something you lack in this field. The
> integrity to look & draw logical conclusions. Xians in particular like
> to claim lack of evidence is not lack of fact. It is when you have no
> evidence when thereshould be evidence.
>
> > by evidence or knowledge. To that extent you are parallel to the
>
> No, I am not. To me the god is going to get you threat is meaningless,
> as it should be. Not because I know there is no god out there that
> rotten, but because it is meaningless noise used by leaders to control
> the sheep. It still works.
>
> Do you even know what a god is, & if so, can you articulate that
> description. You might have one I can add to the list.
>
> You see, your lacka is not binding on me. I don't accept your claims
> for they are not what or who I am. You might try door #3.
>
> > believers. They believe god does exist. You believe god doesn't exist.
>
> When your premise ik wrong, everything you sputter is wrong. Care to
> try that again, only this time try & understand whereyour base error is
> & correct it. BTW, dictionary definitions show popular usage, which
> does not always accurately reflect thee acual meaning of the word.
> Unless you use the Humpty Dumpty routine that is. & even then, you are
> wrong in your assumptions.
>
> > Both of you are "believers." I'm not a believer. I limit my
> > conclusions rigorously to what I know. And we agnostics are certainly
> > not "more holy" than anyone. We acknowledge that we've no evidence
> > that anything holy exists.
>
> Yet you waste your time & skull sweat on the question, you old believer
> you.
>
> > Clip your list of alleged gods as irrelevant to the logical
>
> But they were not irrelevant, are you or are you not agnostic to any or
> all of them, including I suspect, yours. Know what I mean Vern? After
> all, they are god to their followers.
>
> > distinction between atheism and agnosticism which we're examining.
>
> No, we ar not. You are pretending to be in a position to spout like a
> bl.own whale, & we, the atheist community, are IAW you, are to clap our
> flippers like a trained seal & applaud your muddled thinking. Not on
> your say so. Evidence Vern, you aren't going to impres any atheist
> without it.
>
> >> and those gods, recognized by various portions of humanity, are
> >> simply a scratch on the surface of potential gods to be recognized
> >> and worried ove
> > r
> >> by agnostics. But not my atheist.
> > Even now you don't understand agnosticism. We don't spend any time
>
> Oh but I do, it is the cowards way out of a position they brought on
> themselves. & yes, they are ikntellectual colwards, but I can still
> tolerate & accept agnostism as being right for them. After all, it is
> not meant for everyone to be able to walk alone. Some people need
> something to boost their stature kin their own eyes, somme need an
> advrsary, & some, like myself, just are so unconcerned that it would
> make you cry if you could comprehend the depth of that unconcern. Know
> what I mean Vern?
>
> > whatever "recognizing" or being concerned at all by man's compulsion
> > to explain the universe through something supernatural. That's a
>
> I don't have that compulsion, I'm sorry for you if you do.
>
> > psychological condition common to most of mankind. It has nothing to
> > do with verifiable knowledge about the existence or non-existence of
> > god or gods.
>
> It does to the atheist, & that you can't seem to accept. Is it that
> frighting to you?
>
> snip
>
> >> > Thank you for admitting that until God shows up you will take on
> >> > faith the position that he/she/it doesn't exist.
>
> >> There is a large difference between taking something on faith based
> >> on evidence, such as the sun continuing to rise in the east according
> >> to tradition, and a artsy fartsy god worshiper in disguise. You see,
> >> you cannot even use the word of faith correctly.
>
> > We know that the sun rises in the east. It doesn't do so according to
>
> It does so due to the reaction of fravity & planetary mass which causes
> the earth to rotate in only one direction. That is called blief baed on
> evidence. Evidence you can dny, but it does not go away.
>
> > tradition. It is a physical fact. We accept that as it is a part of
>
> It is indeed fact, but unlike the gods, we know why we should believe it
> will continue to rise in the east until the sun goes south in about
> 5000000000 years, give or take a little.
>
> > human knowledge. We don't have any human knowledge of this type which
> > supports the existence or non-existence of god. Until we attain it we
>
> You miss the obvious. If your'e the only one worried about definitions
> that support his fantasy, then no one else need worry over them. Now,
> if you can find likeminded people that share your fantasy, then you can
> form a Gentleman's Club & really be somebody.
>
> > must suspend judgment, stand bye and watch religionists and atheists
>
> Why? On your say so? No, I don't think so. You have made many errors
> in your thinking, among them is the question as to whether there is a
> god, & all that implies, is imprtant is only one of them
>
> > struggle against each other despite basing their arguments on the same
> > things, unprovable assumptions and faith in them.
>
> I don't make assumptions, I do use evidence, negative & positive & form
> conclusions. When I don't know, I admit it. No shame in not knowing
> everything. Know what I mean Vern? I do not assume every half baked
> idea is worth skull sweat, especially not those with any supporting
> evidence.
>
> >> > Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods of
> >> > the
> >> >> desert, is another matter.
>
> >> > That's not the question we're addressing.
>
> >> But it is germane to the conversation.
>
> > No, it's germane to your politics, not to philosophy on the existence
> > or non-existence of god.
>
> It's germaine, just because you don't like it doesn't phase me a bit.
> Knopw ...
>
> read more »
I'll be happy to respond to this if you post it again without
butchering virtually every sentence I wrote.
I'm waiting for you to hear from Trance or whomever that you have
violated fundamental rules of netiquette and are thereby being
profoundly dishonest and are pissing everyone off.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >On Jan 2, 2:18 pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> iconocl...@yahoo.com proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> >> > And there are absolutely no available data sets of non-existence of
> >> > God knowledge to verify that God doesn't exist. Until atheists can
> >> > verify that God doesn't exist their doctrine is based on the
> >> > equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> Yup, and likewise, until you can verify that Easter Bunny doesn't exist,
> >> your doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >Nope. The Easter Bunny is well within human knowledge. The non-
> >existence of God is not.
>
> Show us, O brilliant sage.
>
> >> And likewise, until you can verify that Santa Claus doesn't exist, your
> >> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> And likewise, until you can verify that vampires don't exist, your
> >> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> And likewise, until you can verify that Odin doesn't exist, your
> >> doctrine is based on the equivalent of religious faith.
>
> >> Repeat a few thousand times.
>
> >Earth's religions are man-made. None is credible based on human
> >knowledge. However, human knowledge is painfully limited.
>
> So, if claims about gods do not come from religions, where do they come
> from?
From people who think about such things.
walksalone
news:e91a5c07-5a1c-4784...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 1, 9:31�pm, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:62fa9591-36
> 31-4425-97fd...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 6:58 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> >> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> innews:0e61ac03-33
>> > 76-490d-
snip
>> I don't make assumptions, I do use evidence, negative & positive &
>> form conclusions. �When I don't know, I admit it. �No shame in not
>> knowing everything. �Know what I mean Vern? I do not assume every
>> half baked idea is worth skull sweat, especially not those with any
>> supporting evidence.
>>
>> >> > �Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods
>> >> > of �the
>> >> >> desert, is another matter.
>>
>> >> > That's not the question we're addressing.
>>
>> >> But it is germane to the conversation.
>>
>> > No, it's germane to your politics, not to philosophy on the
>> > existence or non-existence of god.
>>
>> It's germaine, just because you don't like it doesn't phase me a bit.
>> Knopw ...
I have noticed a faair amount of unmarkd txt removal. Isn't that one of
yourwhines. At least when others do it to you, which of course, I
don't.
> I'll be happy to respond to this if you post it again without
> butchering virtually every sentence I wrote.
If you were to be happy to respond to this, or anything else that has
been posted to you, the conversation would have been long over. Yet, you
drag it out. Nothing has been butchered, but the position you claim to
be true has been shown not to be. Agnosticism cannot exist without a
preconceived deity construct. Otherwise, it is totally useless. This is
an inherent dishonesty in an attempt to appear neutral to those around
you. This is quite all right, for you. For me, the ethical standards are
not acceptable. Now you like pretend that agnostics are in a rather
privileged position because they don't know whether a god is knowable or
not. It overlooks the question, why should the question even come up. If
there is no evidence of need, and the question is trivial and mundane at
best. Dishonest at worst. Dishonest because, it peddles a point of view
it is not supported by facts of nature. But there might be a god and we
can't know anything about it. There is no reason to make such an
assumption I was to have a predisposition to accept the probability.
This is not your fault, you were raised that way and you were never
taught critical thinking as a child. Or apparently, as an adult come to
that.
> waiting for you to hear from Trance or whomever that you have
I suspect, that will be a long wait. You see, removal of text properly
marked as a long-standing tradition on USENET. Why, if you're not
responding to a particular point, why make the other readers wade
through 800 lines of bullishit that has nothing to do with the
conversation or points that have been raised, just to hear you say I
agree. They shouldn't. But that's a personal point of view and not
binding on those as verbose as yourself. And that too is all right.
Exactly why I'm not sure, but I suspect it has to do with individual
freedoms and conscience. In your case lack thereof in the case of
conscience.
> violated fundamental rules of netiquette and are thereby being
> profoundly dishonest and are pissing everyone off.
The only thing that you are claiming here is that you are the epic tome
of a good USENET poster when in fact you are not. If I don't piss
someone off once in a while, then I'm not asking the right questions.
From your point of view, that is Utopia. From mine, I can't learn
anything new if I don't get a response I don't want to hear or, is
contradictory to what I hold to be true. Granted, this may not work for
you and apparently, it does not. You're looking for accolades and are
receiving jeers. I'm not the only one who has pointed out the invalidity
of the position. You cannot even define what a god he is, and yet you're
going to tell me I need to consider the possibility of it being real. If
it is real, you cannot even provide support for the position that, it
should matter to me. After all, it may be totally unconcerned with
humanity, and some gods of humanity are in that category. In other
words, you're full of it. You've done your little song and dance and
worn out your welcome, and are too obtuse to understand that. And that
too is all right. After all, humanity would not put here for your
amusement, nor are you here for the amusement of humanity. Granted, you
should act that way but, that's because you don't know any better
because you already accept that you and you alone know the truth.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
By the way, be assured that by now, if I was dissing everybody all, they
would have informed me. I have been in and out of this newsgroup since
1995. I suspect that what little I have to say carries more weight than
everything individuated in your close to 3000 messages across USENET.
Any questions, ask your missing god. Otherwise, feel free to terminate
your end of the conversation, it's not like a contributing anything. But
it's like you cannot contribute anything and simply must repeat your
mantra. Atheism is a faith, which is a lie in any sense of the word that
I've ever encountered. It's not always a reasoned position, sometimes
it's intuitive, sometimes a reaction against what people of faith have
claimed. The question of a gods existence is worthy of consideration,
which of course it is not. If you were to be a god, wouldn't even
recognize humanity as being worthy of notice or in need of interference
with? Not if it's as described in the claims of humanity. You cannot
even define this guy thingy you are so concerned about, and yet you
expect the atheist crew do jump on your little Showboat and applaud you
for your discernment & courage in bringing it to our attention. You
don't even understand what atheism is and yet, you're going to make vast
proclamations about what it must be, because you don't understand that
we simply don't give a damn about your god thingies. They are your
beliefs, your handicap, we elect, or at least in my case I have elected,
that based on the lack of evidence, it's not worth the skull sweat
involved in the consideration of, should I take a dump behind this bush
a walk 3 feet to the outhouse. Not really anything worth getting excited
over. Of course, it is your privilege and right to believe otherwise,
but it is not your privilege or right to demand others concur with your
myopic point of view.
walksalone who doubts that Hunter will understand any of this, after all
is contrary to what he believes. And believe this case is used in the
worst sense of the word.
"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
wrote:
>On Jan 1, 8:05�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:27 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>> >There is nothing "wannabe" about non-theism.
>> Yes, yes there is. �Atheism has no basis for belief other than the desire to say
>> no to all the evidence. �That makes you a wannabe.
>Except that it's 2010 and, Gee, we're still waiting to see all that
>evidence....
I see it. What's your problem?
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 07:05:39 -0600, duke wrote:
>
>> Yes, yes there is. Atheism has no basis for belief other than the
>> desire to say no to all the evidence.
>
><eyeroll>There's so much evidence atheists hardly know where to begin
>saying yes. </eyeroll>
Cool.
duke
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Dec 31 2009, 2:29�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2009 19:14:42 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >J <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> >>I will take my final opportunity this year to wish each and every one of
>> >>you, your families, and your loved ones a most happy, healthy, and
>> >>prosperous New Year. May 2010 be the best year of your lives.
>>
>> >Thank you! �And may 2010 be one of the worst years of your life.
>>
>> Well put for an atheist wannabe.
>'Atheist wannabe' is what this Catholic wannabe always
>calls us, in an attempt to upset us.
I have all the evidence, h7.
Free Lunch
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Why would they?
Trance Gemini
Putting words in my mouth to make it look like I agree with you does
not change my position nor does it make your position any less
fallacious than it was originally.
It does reek of dishonesty though.
<snipped>
Trance Gemini
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:07:58 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 1, 8:05 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:24:27 -0700, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>
> ><snipped>
>
> >> >There is nothing "wannabe" about non-theism.
> >> Yes, yes there is. Atheism has no basis for belief other than the desire to say
> >> no to all the evidence. That makes you a wannabe.
> >Except that it's 2010 and, Gee, we're still waiting to see all that
> >evidence....
>
> I see it. What's your problem?
That you're delusion and could use the help of a good shrink?
Evidence isn't evidence because delusional people say it is.
Evidence can be seen by all.
Please feel free to provide it anytime.
I won't hold my breath waiting for it though ;-)
Christopher A. Lee
Piggyback...
On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:43:56 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 2, 10:38�pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 5:58�pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 2, 3:46�pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jan 2, 1:25�pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Jan 2, 12:51�pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>>
>> > <snipped>
>>
>> > > > > You're right, I have used them interchangeably, but that's because
>> > > > > that's how they are used among religious people. Everyone has beliefs.
>> > > > > Religious people and atheists have faith.
>>
>> > > > So, you're using them incorrectly because some religious people
>> > > > conflate them in order to make statements like the one you're making
>> > > > fallaciously.
>>
>> > > > That makes no sense.
>>
>> > > Not really. I mean faith in our context.
>>
>> > Atheists don't have faith in gods or their non-existence.
>>
>> Then you are all agnostics. Welcome to the fold!
Iconoclast is lying about atheists, to atheists.
Because TO ATHEISTS gods are merely somebody else's irrelevant
religious belief. There is no reason to treat them as anything more
than that.
Not something that could or could not exist.
Using his own arguments, if he is honest he has to to be equally
agnostic about all the other beliefs other people have but he doesn't.
Like Zeus, Osiris, Odin, Father Christmas, ghosts, leprechauns, pixies
and even the Starship Enterprise.
Which expands the word into meaninglessness.
If he doesn't do that then he singles out the one he is agnostic about
for different treatment.
Which atheists don't do.
Like too many self-described agnostics he tries to apply Sherlock
Holmes' exclusion method to come up with what he imagines we are -
without taking into account all the possibilities he can't think of.
>> > We have no reason to believe in their existence until a theist can
>> > prove their existence or a god demonstrates it exists.
>>
>> You simply don't know whether one or another exists and are going to
>> suspend judgment until evidence turns up. Congratulations. Welcome to
>> the ranks of agnostics. Atheism doesn't exist!
Liar.
>> > Until that moment gods are quite irrelevant to most of us.
>>
>> And to agnostics I assure you.
>>
>> > > But you atheists *believe*
>> > > god doesn't exist.
Liar.
>> > Given that *I'm* the atheist here I'd appreciate it if you stopped
>> > telling me what the fuck I believe and LISTEN to me when I tell you
>> > what the fuck I believe.
He won't. He's a self-proclaimed "open-minded" agnostic who isn't
open-minded enough to admit that he could be wrong about what an
atheist is.
>> That would be appropriate if you knew that you are an agnostic.
Liar.
>> > > It's your central tenet. Religionists on the other
>> > > hand *believe* god does exist. Both operate on what we call faith, a
>> > > blind acceptance of a proposition which is unknown or unknowable.
Liar.
>> > > Don't quibble about word usage. There is plenty of room to work out
>> > > the infelicities of the language. The key is in the meantime to keep
>> > > your eye on the ball.
So why don't you, liar?
>> > Not when the words are grossly misused in this way and mean very
>> > different things than those attributed to them.
>>
>> You suspend judgment until god parks in earth orbit and is seen from
>> the Hubbell telescope.
They don't have Popperian falsifiability on this liar's planet.
>> > If you have any interest whatsoever in rational communication then you
>> > should use the words correctly.
>>
>> They're hopelessly scrambled in common parlance. Al long as we
>> understand each other we'll do fine.
You don't even try,liar.
>> > > > > > > >Particularly since the base position of atheists is simply that there
>> > > > > > > >is no reason to believe in god(s).
>>
>> But you acknowledge an outside possibility that god(s) exist. In the
>> interim you suspend judgment. You are agnostics.
Liar.
>> > > > > But there is no reason to rule-out the existence of god. That's your
>> > > > > logical flaw.
>> > > > Not having a reason to believe doesn't constitute "rule-out the
>> > > > existence of god".
>>
>> Excellent, your are agnostics, not atheists.
Liar.
>> I'm on the brink of an
>> earth-shattering philosophical innovation. I'll be enshrined in
>> Wikipedia and become a good, solid, black letter footnote in the
>> history of Western Philosophy.
Asshole.
>> > > I'm glad to hear you say that.
>>
>> > Most atheists would say that.
>>
>> Even better, you have broad support in the rank and file. Welcome to
>> agnosticism.
Liar.
>> > Unless of course we're talking about a specific and clearly defined
>> > god like the Abrahamic God.
>>
>> Heavens! Who would do that!?
>>
>> > That one *can* be falsified and demonstrated not to exist as can other
>> > defined gods.
>>
>> Precisely.
>>
>> > Undefined gods, of course, cannot be falsified for obvious reasons.
>>
>> Exactly our position. And if you are to argue that they are falsified
>> you are are doing it as an article of faith. I'm glad you arrived.
>> Walksaloned simply does not comprehend.
No liar, he knows perfectly well what an atheist is, On the other hand
you don't, because you have no idea what the ill-defined word "God"
means outside the theist paradigm which you seem stuck in.
>Putting words in my mouth to make it look like I agree with you does
>not change my position nor does it make your position any less
>fallacious than it was originally.
>
>It does reek of dishonesty though.
He imagines that if we don't fit the first few of a restricted set of
alternatives he gets to decide that we are the remaining one because
he can't think of any others,E, F, G etc.
And having made up his mind nothing will convince him otherwise. He'll
try to "prove" we're wrong about ourselves rather than admit he could
be wrong.
Too many agnostics do this.
Because in spite of what they claim they can't think outside the
theist paradigm and imagine that thist's view of god applies to
everybody.
Even though the only 100% accurate definitions describe it in terms of
who believes in it and what they believe.
From the Encarta World Dictionary (print edition):
"the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism,
Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator
of the universe, worshiped as the only god"
So inside the virtual reality of those religions they believe it is
"real". Outside them it is "what they believe as part of those
religions".
><snipped>
>
>> > As long you continue to wallow in your ignorance and not pay attention
>> > to what people are trying to tell you, you will not be able to
>> > understand any of this.
>>
>> As I say, I'll respond to walksalone when he stoops butchering my
>> prose. Apatheist agnostic atheist. Excellent.
Liar.
>> > And for your information, I walked onto my other site with much the
>> > same arguments as you are giving now.
>>
>> Apatheist agnostic atheist. Progress!
Liar.
>> > The difference between you and me is that I didn't have the arrogance
>> > to assume that I was right and I took the time to listen to the
>> > explanations people gave, discuss them honestly, ask questions, etc.
>> > That process is called learning.
>> > You might want to give a try.
>>
>> I engage in the process every day. Here, you're the first to give it a
>> new turn. See you later.
Liar.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:e91a5c07-5a1c-
>
Clip the path whence we arrived here--for brevity.
>
> >> I don't make assumptions, I do use evidence, negative & positive &
> >> form conclusions. When I don't know, I admit it. No shame in not
> >> knowing everything. Know what I mean Vern? I do not assume every
> >> half baked idea is worth skull sweat, especially not those with any
> >> supporting evidence.
For the benefit of the readership, my name is Hunter Watson. I am
neither a Vern nor do I know any Verns.
> >> >> > Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed gods
> >> >> > of the
> >> >> >> desert, is another matter.
>
> >> >> > That's not the question we're addressing.
>
> >> >> But it is germane to the conversation.
>
> >> > No, it's germane to your politics, not to philosophy on the
> >> > existence or non-existence of god.
>
> >> It's germaine, just because you don't like it doesn't phase me a bit.
> >> Knopw ...
>
> I have noticed a faair amount of unmarkd txt removal.
Very little but if you like, you and I can agree to delete nothing.
Isn't that one of
> yourwhines. At least when others do it to you, which of course, I
> don't.
Butchering my gorgeous prose by breaking into almost every sentence
and pushing the rest of it six or eight inches down the page is a sign
of fear and/or deviousness. You did it the last time we met too. If
you want to interact with me you must stop it. If you don't then just
bugger-off.
> > I'll be happy to respond to this if you post it again without
> > butchering virtually every sentence I wrote.
>
> If you were to be happy to respond to this, or anything else that has
> been posted to you, the conversation would have been long over.
It's already pretty much over. You're a group of agnostics who until
now thought you were atheists. That's been established. I'll stick
around to tidy up for a while though if some of you settle down and
start thinking clearly and consistently. No two of you have been on
the same page.
Yet, you
> drag it out.
I'll remain for so long as it is entertaining.
Nothing has been butchered,
You don't like my descriptor for breaking into the middle of virtually
every sentence in a long post.? Well, you'll just have to live with
it. You've behave like a fear filled butcher. I broke into your
sentence here to demonstrate the technique.
but the position you claim to
> be true has been shown not to be.
Why not just say it. "Agnosticism has not been shown to be.....what?"
Agnosticism cannot exist without a
> preconceived deity construct. Otherwise, it is totally useless.
Dead wrong. Frivolous even. Agnosticism exists because of the finite
and limited mind of man combined with an apparently infinite unknown.
This is
> an inherent dishonesty in an attempt to appear neutral to those around
> you.
So far you've not made an argument for the necessity of a
"preconceived deity construct" in agnosticism. I'm very interested in
your argument if you have one.
This is quite all right, for you.
Certainly not. I don't entertain any such preconceived deity construct
as you so awkwardly put it.
For me, the ethical standards are
> not acceptable.
For Chrissake this is more akin to physics than ethics. Ethics
presumes society and more particularly a human society. What ethical
standards are you talking of in the context of agnosticism?
Now you like pretend that agnostics are in a rather
> privileged position because they don't know whether a god is knowable or
> not.
Haha. Privileged? No. Correct? Yes.
It overlooks the question, why should the question even come up.
Huxley found it interesting. Huxley was a great man. Therefore it is
likely that the question is in fact at least interesting to
intelligent men and women.
If
> there is no evidence of need, and the question is trivial and mundane at
> best.
Philosophers don't limit their inquiries because of an alleged lack of
a current pragmatic need to address a problem. They are not engineers.
Their entire discipline would shut down if that were the rule.
Philosophers usually have nice jobs on pleasant campuses and want to
keep them by staying busy.
When they make such assertions as, "There is no present evidence of
previously unknown gods, so we won't bother with that now, they are
adopting the agnostic position, they are suspending judgment. Einstein
rejected atheism firmly. He labeled himself an agnostic.
The only real atheism is what's known as "hard atheism". These are the
guys who say that "God doesn't exist". They're the ones whose position
on the matter requires an *act of faith* exactly as does that of the
religionists. They want to affect knowing so they take his non-
existence on faith. "Hail Mary, full of grace..." etc. This is
characteristic of religions all over the world.
The other strains of atheism admit they don't know but for
psychological reasons want to still call themselves atheists. They
"reason" that if they don't give a damn whether God exists they will
look like atheists to the uninitiated. But they really can't because
the fact that they might not believe in such a god doesn't rule out
that he might exist. They are obviously taking into account the
possibility of a deity, therefore they aren't saying "God doesn't
exist." These people are functional or coarse agnostics.
Dishonest at worst. Dishonest because, it peddles a point of view
> it is not supported by facts of nature. But there might be a god and we
> can't know anything about it.
I use the word "don't," not "can't". We humans have very limited
knowledge of the "facts of nature". Admitting our limitations is
honest.
There is no reason to make such an
> assumption I was to have a predisposition to accept the probability.
Agnostics acknowledge that they have no handle on probabilities.
That's a corollary to not knowing.
> This is not your fault, you were raised that way and you were never
> taught critical thinking as a child. Or apparently, as an adult come to
> that.
Here you are with another of your leaps of faith. You have no idea
what I was taught as a child. Agnostics decline to make assumptions
such as "God doesn't exist". Or "there is no reason". When we run up
against the limits of human knowledge we refuse to jump to such
conclusions. We admit that we know painfully little about the
universe. Einstein was forced to do the same.
> > waiting for you to hear from Trance or whomever that you have
>
> I suspect, that will be a long wait.
Don't worry, Trance and I are already old friends. You must have
missed that.
You see, removal of text properly
> marked as a long-standing tradition on USENET. Why, if you're not
> responding to a particular point, why make the other readers wade
> through 800 lines of bullishit that has nothing to do with the
> conversation or points that have been raised, just to hear you say I
> agree. They shouldn't.
Not guilty Mr. Butcher.
But that's a personal point of view and not
> binding on those as verbose as yourself. And that too is all right.
> Exactly why I'm not sure, but I suspect it has to do with individual
> freedoms and conscience. In your case lack thereof in the case of
> conscience.
Only the profoundly insecure constantly avoid the subject and attempt
to replace it with attacks on the debate opponent.
> > violated fundamental rules of netiquette and are thereby being
> > profoundly dishonest and are pissing everyone off.
Yes, yes, in desperation you affect being "pissed" about matters of
etiquette. Yet you are not remotely civil, which is all that matters,
and are so weak as to take offense at arguments you can't handle. You
are insecure and are protecting something. I suspect it has to do with
your atheist platform for bashing religionists.
> The only thing that you are claiming here is that you are the epic tome
> of a good USENET poster when in fact you are not.
I'm claiming that I'm a book? I've made claims about what a good
"USENET" poster is? Hardly. In reality I've taken a philosophical
position to which you can not respond coherently. You're circling your
wagons and throwing Dreck. Think, now. Einstein was expressly an
agnostic. He vigorously rejected atheism. He based that rejection
largely on what he knew about the structure of the physical universe.
Do you have anything to say in response to him? Or to Huxley for that
matter? I'm nobody. I simply follow in their path. Are you going to
throw Dreck at Einstein?
If I don't piss
> someone off once in a while, then I'm not asking the right questions.
Exactly, I see you as getting off on offending people, as being
motivated by that and not by philosophical inquiry. In fact most of
your tribe here seems to me to be in your category: rigorous bashers,
but not rigorous thinkers. There's a whiff of sadism there.
> From your point of view, that is Utopia.
You are having difficulty understanding my point of view. Try to
accomplish that before you launch into bashing mode.
Utopian *political theories* in their various forms have been around
for the last 2,500 years. They run from Plato through Marxism to
Zionism. Every one of them has failed for reasons analogous to the
failure of atheism, the leap of faith. I'm willing to discuss
utopianism with you in another thread but let us stick to sophomore
level philosophy now.
From mine, I can't learn
> anything new if I don't get a response I don't want to hear or, is
> contradictory to what I hold to be true.
You might try reading.
Granted, this may not work for
> you and apparently, it does not. You're looking for accolades and are
> receiving jeers.
More assumptions taken on faith. You really are quite religious.
I'm not the only one who has pointed out the invalidity
> of the position. You cannot even define what a god he is, and yet you're
> going to tell me I need to consider the possibility of it being real.
Exactly. A possibility which can not be ruled out, one which springs
from abysmal human ignorance, from the vast unknown. Think now. Where
have you gotten yourself? I couldn't care less if you want to *behave*
as if God had been ruled out. You have to protect your bashing rights
after all. But your behavior isn't relevant to the logic of atheism
vs. agnosticism. I care only about the logic.
If
> it is real, you cannot even provide support for the position that, it
> should matter to me. After all, it may be totally unconcerned with
> humanity, and some gods of humanity are in that category. In other
> words, you're full of it.
I suggest that you bash Einstein. But that accomplished you will not
have touched the idea he represents.
You've done your little song and dance and
> worn out your welcome, and are too obtuse to understand that.
Welcome? Haha. This is usenet. In a week a couple of reasonably well
informed and articulate agnostics would own alt.atheism. But you would
still be welcome. Haha.
And that
> too is all right. After all, humanity would not put here for your
> amusement, nor are you here for the amusement of humanity. Granted, you
> should act that way but, that's because you don't know any better
> because you already accept that you and you alone know the truth.
> Nothing could be further from the truth.
Haha, humanity was not put here for your amusement. Pure religious
imagery. Straight from the desert.
You STILL don't understand. Agnostics expressly disclaim knowing "the
truth." That's what differentiates them from agnostics.
> By the way, be assured that by now, if I was dissing everybody all, they
> would have informed me. I have been in and out of this newsgroup since
> 1995. I suspect that what little I have to say carries more weight than
> everything individuated in your close to 3000 messages across USENET.
Quantitative analysis, eh? Higher and deeper means better? More is
better? Only your capacity to think clearly matters. You display some
difficulties with that.
> Any questions, ask your missing god. Otherwise, feel free to terminate
> your end of the conversation, it's not like a contributing anything. But
> it's like you cannot contribute anything and simply must repeat your
> mantra. Atheism is a faith, which is a lie in any sense of the word that
> I've ever encountered.
So you say, my friend. But what choice have you given your sadistic
priorities.
It's not always a reasoned position, sometimes
> it's intuitive, sometimes a reaction against what people of faith have
> claimed. The question of a gods existence is worthy of consideration,
> which of course it is not. If you were to be a god, wouldn't even
> recognize humanity as being worthy of notice or in need of interference
> with? Not if it's as described in the claims of humanity.
The claims of logic in light of man's limitations are what drives
agnosticism. Maundering about what's "worthy of consideration" is a
cop out. It demonstrates that you can not cope with the implications
of our limited capacity and knowledge. As I say, atheists seem to me
to be more interested in lashing out than in the ideas involved.
Agnostics are laid-back, relaxed, non-missionary.
You cannot
> even define this guy thingy you are so concerned about, and yet you
> expect the atheist crew do jump on your little Showboat and applaud you
> for your discernment & courage in bringing it to our attention.
You still don't understand. We're dealing with the implications of
human limitations. Definitions are obviously impossible. That's part
of the necessity of suspending judgment.
You
> don't even understand what atheism is and yet, you're going to make vast
> proclamations about what it must be, because you don't understand that
> we simply don't give a damn about your god thingies.
You pose no difficulties of comprehension. Not giving a damn is an
attitude, not a philosophical position. It's also proof that you're
not even an atheist. Atheism isn't about whether you give a damn. Even
a man of your culture should be able to see the difference between not
giving a damn and "God doesn't exist."
They are your
> beliefs, your handicap, we elect, or at least in my case I have elected,
> that, i based on the lack of evidencet's not worth the skull sweat
> involved in the consideration of, should I take a dump behind this bush
> a walk 3 feet to the outhouse. Not really anything worth getting excited
> over. Of course, it is your privilege and right to believe otherwise,
> but it is not your privilege or right to demand others concur with your
> myopic point of view.
Here's the smoking gun straight from your own mouth: "....based on the
lack of evidencet's not worth the skull sweat..." You're an agnostic.
At bottom line most of you are. You admit to yourselves that you
simply don't know but you badly want to bash and therefore adopt a
policy of aggressive ignorance and calll it atheism.
> walksalone who doubts that Hunter will understand any of this, after all
> is contrary to what he believes. And believe this case is used in the
> worst sense of the word.
People with poor nerves frequently say the opposite of what they are
thinking.
>
> "Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
> "That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Poor Aristotle, to be upstaged by the boy who cried "wolf".
walksalone
news:68c8b44b-233f-4762...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 3, 7:33 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:e91a5c07-5a1c-
>>
> Clip the path whence we arrived here--for brevity.
Finally, though the comment was not needed for the astute. Looks good
though,
>>
>> >> I don't make assumptions, I do use evidence, negative & positive &
>> >> form conclusions. When I don't know, I admit it. No shame in not
>> >> knowing everything. Know what I mean Vern? I do not assume every
>> >> half baked idea is worth skull sweat, especially not those with
>> >> any supporting evidence.
>
> For the benefit of the readership, my name is Hunter Watson. I am
> neither a Vern nor do I know any Verns.
Vern, in the SE USA is an expression used by a pest who is always butting
into the business of others, often equtaed with the pest itself.
Know what I mean Vern?
>> >> >> > Now whether it is worthy of worship, unlike the revealed
>> >> >> > gods
>> >> >> > of the
>> >> >> >> desert, is another matter.
>>
>> >> >> > That's not the question we're addressing.
>>
>> >> >> But it is germane to the conversation.
>>
>> >> > No, it's germane to your politics, not to philosophy on the
>> >> > existence or non-existence of god.
>>
>> >> It's germaine, just because you don't like it doesn't phase me a
>> >> bit. Knopw ...
>>
>> I have noticed a faair amount of unmarkd txt removal.
>
> Very little but if you like, you and I can agree to delete nothing.
Wrong anser, I will continue to mark regions of text that I remove.
> Isn't that one of
>> yourwhines. At least when others do it to you, which of course, I
>> don't.
>
> Butchering my gorgeous prose by breaking into almost every sentence
> and pushing the rest of it six or eight inches down the page is a sign
> of fear and/or deviousness. You did it the last time we met too. If
Not really, it indictes to the audience, what I am responding to. Fear,
of you or ypour pretensions is not a concern for me, or others. Know
what I mean Vern.
> you want to interact with me you must stop it. If you don't then just
> bugger-off.
Yo, buzzard breath, you are the intruder here. With your prtensions ot
some variety of superiority that you have yet to demonstarte. Let me
give you a clue, a free clue.
You want accolades, then post to groups that hold with your
misconceptions, which excludes the alt.atheism group. The opnlyh one I
subscribe to.
You get your feelings hurt, go whine to your mentor. That person won't
be an atheist.
>> > I'll be happy to respond to this if you post it again without
>> > butchering virtually every sentence I wrote.
>>
>> If you were to be happy to respond to this, or anything else that has
>> been posted to you, the conversation would have been long over.
>
> It's already pretty much over. You're a group of agnostics who until
According to you, but you have yet to stablish that. Nor will you. It's
easy to declare victory, but you will never wear the Laural. Based on
your lackluster performance here, a Dunce cap may be your wardrobes most
worn item.
> now thought you were atheists. That's been established. I'll stick
Only in your mind. Some atheists are agnostic on the question of
whichever god you are worried about.
But here is one of primary failures.
Until you define your god, all you are doing is posturing for the crowd.
A rather old routine by those like you, & easily spotted by the atheist
group regulars.
> around to tidy up for a while though if some of you settle down and
Would that you would tidy up your mess. The carpet stamer is in the hall
closet.
> start thinking clearly and consistently. No two of you have been on
> the same page.
Just becasue the obvious eludes you is no reflection on thne mental
skills of the atheists.
> Yet, you
>> drag it out.
>
> I'll remain for so long as it is entertaining.
You would be long gone were that true. You wre no longer entertaining by
your third posing session to the group.
> Nothing has been butchered,
>
> You don't like my descriptor for breaking into the middle of virtually
> every sentence in a long post.? Well, you'll just have to live with
> it. You've behave like a fear filled butcher. I broke into your
> sentence here to demonstrate the technique.
No, you broke into it for spite. The differeance, when I break your flow
of effulent, I say what I say & leave it alone. Even though you can't
make the connection, others can. Your problem is?
> but the position you claim to
>> be true has been shown not to be.
>
> Why not just say it. "Agnosticism has not been shown to be.....what?"
Well, it has been shown to be an exercise in chasing your tail.
> Agnosticism cannot exist without a
>> preconceived deity construct. Otherwise, it is totally useless.
>
> Dead wrong. Frivolous even. Agnosticism exists because of the finite
Yes you are, thanks for admitting that.
> and limited mind of man combined with an apparently infinite unknown.
According to you, now define this god you don't know if it exists, butr
we need to worry over it.
> This is
>> an inherent dishonesty in an attempt to appear neutral to those
>> around you.
> So far you've not made an argument for the necessity of a
> "preconceived deity construct" in agnosticism. I'm very interested in
> your argument if you have one.
The information is in prior posts. Just because you don't want to
address it is not the fault of any atgheist I know. BTW, I'm not the
only one that has shown the hollowness of your pretensions.
> This is quite all right, for you.
According to the attributes you are talking to yourself.
> Certainly not. I don't entertain any such preconceived deity construct
> as you so awkwardly put it.
But you do, else the question would be moot & of no concern. People
don't wate skull sweat on questions that do not concern them.
> For me, the ethical standards are
>> not acceptable.
>
> For Chrissake this is more akin to physics than ethics. Ethics
> presumes society and more particularly a human society. What ethical
> standards are you talking of in the context of agnosticism?
Lieing to myself for starters.
> Now you like pretend that agnostics are in a rather
>> privileged position because they don't know whether a god is knowable
>> or not.
>
> Haha. Privileged? No. Correct? Yes.
No, privialaged. You assume, wongly, that the question has merit to
everyone. it isn't. As to correct, without the presupposition of a
deity to worry over, the question is meaningless. But you are not going
to accept that, it does not flatter you.
> It overlooks the question, why should the question even come up.
> Huxley found it interesting. Huxley was a great man. Therefore it is
> likely that the question is in fact at least interesting to
> intelligent men and women.
It never occured to my ribal ghrandfather, so what. It matters not who
has asked a question, when the question has no merit.
> If
>> there is no evidence of need, and the question is trivial and mundane
>> at best.
>
> Philosophers don't limit their inquiries because of an alleged lack of
Ah yes, questions that may never be answered, but even then they are
frequently mundane & useless when it comes to generating information.
> a current pragmatic need to address a problem. They are not engineers.
> Their entire discipline would shut down if that were the rule.
> Philosophers usually have nice jobs on pleasant campuses and want to
> keep them by staying busy.
Which has nothing to do with the validity of your position.
> When they make such assertions as, "There is no present evidence of
> previously unknown gods, so we won't bother with that now, they are
> adopting the agnostic position, they are suspending judgment. Einstein
> rejected atheism firmly. He labeled himself an agnostic.
So what, or do you believe because an appeal to an authority is good
enough for you, it has to be good enough for everyone.
> The only real atheism is what's known as "hard atheism". These are the
> guys who say that "God doesn't exist". They're the ones whose position
Now, you are saying that there can only be one kind of atheist? I don't
believe you.
> on the matter requires an *act of faith* exactly as does that of the
> religionists. They want to affect knowing so they take his non-
> existence on faith. "Hail Mary, full of grace..." etc. This is
> characteristic of religions all over the world.
Just like you. You assume your buffonery is changeing minds. In your
mind that may be true, but not in mine & the minds of others.
> The other strains of atheism admit they don't know but for
> psychological reasons want to still call themselves atheists. They
Ethical, but then, you can't beleive that. it does not coincide with
your misconceptions.
> "reason" that if they don't give a damn whether God exists they will
> look like atheists to the uninitiated. But they really can't because
> the fact that they might not believe in such a god doesn't rule out
> that he might exist. They are obviously taking into account the
& other than those like you, who for reasons I will never totally
understand, like to pretend the question has merit, just who do you think
gives a flying fuck at a rolling donut. But then, you don't care about
others, your dog & pony show is just for you.
> possibility of a deity, therefore they aren't saying "God doesn't
> exist." These people are functional or coarse agnostics.
Atheism is without a belief, belief being active, in deity. That des not
permit ylou to hang your nose up highenugh for the buzzards to roost ikn,
& you prfetend to know what you can't show.
> Dishonest at worst. Dishonest because, it peddles a point of view
>> it is not supported by facts of nature. But there might be a god and
>> we can't know anything about it.
>
> I use the word "don't," not "can't". We humans have very limited
> knowledge of the "facts of nature". Admitting our limitations is
> honest.
Well, yes, but you have arleady demonstarted your willingness to baffle
the troops with your bullshit. But self imposed limits are crippling to
the human spirit. You can keep yours to yourself.
> There is no reason to make such an
>> assumption I was to have a predisposition to accept the probability.
> Agnostics acknowledge that they have no handle on probabilities.
> That's a corollary to not knowing.
Not knwing can also be a corollary to being stupid instead of ignorant.
>> This is not your fault, you were raised that way and you were never
>> taught critical thinking as a child. Or apparently, as an adult come
>> to that.
> Here you are with another of your leaps of faith. You have no idea
> what I was taught as a child. Agnostics decline to make assumptions
> such as "God doesn't exist". Or "there is no reason". When we run up
> against the limits of human knowledge we refuse to jump to such
> conclusions. We admit that we know painfully little about the
> universe. Einstein was forced to do the same.
I don't care what you were taught as a child, it is your cl;aims as an
adult that are sad, & in this series of bustering, dishonest.
>> > waiting for you to hear from Trance or whomever that you have
>>
>> I suspect, that will be a long wait.
> Don't worry, Trance and I are already old friends. You must have
> missed that.
I still suspect that will be a long wait. & no, that is not speaking for
Trance. But then, Trance probbably knows that.
> You see, removal of text properly
>> marked as a long-standing tradition on USENET. Why, if you're not
>> responding to a particular point, why make the other readers wade
>> through 800 lines of bullishit that has nothing to do with the
>> conversation or points that have been raised, just to hear you say I
>> agree. They shouldn't.
>
> Not guilty Mr. Butcher.
But you are, you like to see your trash talking in print, pay a printer.
> But that's a personal point of view and not
>> binding on those as verbose as yourself. And that too is all right.
>> Exactly why I'm not sure, but I suspect it has to do with individual
>> freedoms and conscience. In your case lack thereof in the case of
>> conscience.
> Only the profoundly insecure constantly avoid the subject and attempt
> to replace it with attacks on the debate opponent.
You are the subject, along with your false claims. Don't like it,
correct it.
>> > violated fundamental rules of netiquette and are thereby being
>> > profoundly dishonest and are pissing everyone off.
>
> Yes, yes, in desperation you affect being "pissed" about matters of
> etiquette. Yet you are not remotely civil, which is all that matters,
Desperation, I'm not the one pretending that I have a untenable position
that everyone else relly accepts.
> and are so weak as to take offense at arguments you can't handle. You
> are insecure and are protecting something. I suspect it has to do with
> your atheist platform for bashing religionists.
You have yet to present an argument. You pretend to have one, but you
have to show ikt, or support it.
>> The only thing that you are claiming here is that you are the epic
>> tome of a good USENET poster when in fact you are not.
>
> I'm claiming that I'm a book? I've made claims about what a good
> "USENET" poster is? Hardly. In reality I've taken a philosophical
> position to which you can not respond coherently. You're circling your
> wagons and throwing Dreck. Think, now. Einstein was expressly an
> agnostic. He vigorously rejected atheism. He based that rejection
> largely on what he knew about the structure of the physical universe.
> Do you have anything to say in response to him? Or to Huxley for that
> matter? I'm nobody. I simply follow in their path. Are you going to
> throw Dreck at Einstein?
You ar as de3nse as a the Biblica Giga, & unlike that tome, not a cutting
dge in anything during any part of your life in the atheist newgroup.
> If I don't piss
>> someone off once in a while, then I'm not asking the right questions.
>
> Exactly, I see you as getting off on offending people, as being
> motivated by that and not by philosophical inquiry. In fact most of
> your tribe here seems to me to be in your category: rigorous bashers,
> but not rigorous thinkers. There's a whiff of sadism there.
Thank you for another vapid observation. & that it pisses you off to be
held up as an example what a On Topic posting routine, & an
unsupportable one at that, is to your credit. No cure your ignorance
abut atheism & let the door hi9t yhou on your ass on your way out.
>> From your point of view, that is Utopia.
> You are having difficulty understanding my point of view. Try to
> accomplish that before you launch into bashing mode.
No difficulty, a Second Lieutenant is still a secend louie. IOW, your
ignorance flatters you to the point where even though you had/have
nothing to say about the topic you espouse, you expect others to stand at
attention & pretend yu aren't that ignorant.
Hint knowing book definitions is handy in some circles, but useles in the
reaal world.
> Utopian *political theories* in their various forms have been around
> for the last 2,500 years. They run from Plato through Marxism to
> Zionism. Every one of them has failed for reasons analogous to the
> failure of atheism, the leap of faith. I'm willing to discuss
> utopianism with you in another thread but let us stick to sophomore
> level philosophy now.
However, atheism is not one of hose theories. So what?
> From mine, I can't learn
>> anything new if I don't get a response I don't want to hear or, is
>> contradictory to what I hold to be true.
> You might try reading.
Want to borrow a book. Sorry, mine are meant for people to learn from.
> Granted, this may not work for
>> you and apparently, it does not. You're looking for accolades and are
>> receiving jeers.
>
> More assumptions taken on faith. You really are quite religious.
No, based on reponses to your prancing& dancing around & avoiding
supporting your positions. BTW, care to define this god that concerns
you?
> I'm not the only one who has pointed out the invalidity
>> of the position. You cannot even define what a god he is, and yet
>> you're going to tell me I need to consider the possibility of it
>> being real.
>
> Exactly. A possibility which can not be ruled out, one which springs
> from abysmal human ignorance, from the vast unknown. Think now. Where
> have you gotten yourself? I couldn't care less if you want to *behave*
> as if God had been ruled out. You have to protect your bashing rights
> after all. But your behavior isn't relevant to the logic of atheism
> vs. agnosticism. I care only about the logic.
IOW, you still can not show reason why anyone should take you seriously.
That's all right, those that have tried to immpress the atheist news
group failed to do so.
> If
>> it is real, you cannot even provide support for the position that, it
>> should matter to me. After all, it may be totally unconcerned with
>> humanity, and some gods of humanity are in that category. In other
>> words, you're full of it.
>
> I suggest that you bash Einstein. But that accomplished you will not
> have touched the idea he represents.
No need to, he didn't pretend to special knowledge & the only god he
could assoiate himself was PAntheism, or Spinosa's god. With no god to
worry about. You were saying, or rather you were trying to impress
others with yur lacka.
> You've done your little song and dance and
>> worn out your welcome, and are too obtuse to understand that.
> Welcome? Haha. This is usenet. In a week a couple of reasonably well
> informed and articulate agnostics would own alt.atheism. But you would
> still be welcome. Haha.
People that can join in & not pretend to be kowing what hey can't show.
Whereas you are not in that catergory. & yes, good people are alays
welcome. Obnoxious pretensions individuals, such as you present
yourself, are welcome for training purposes & help the lurkers
undedrstand how to spot imposters.
> And that
>> too is all right. After all, humanity would not put here for your
>> amusement, nor are you here for the amusement of humanity. Granted,
>> you should act that way but, that's because you don't know any better
>> because you already accept that you and you alone know the truth.
>> Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> Haha, humanity was not put here for your amusement. Pure religious
> imagery. Straight from the desert.
Accordingto you. Every mythos I've studied has the concept, but I was
put here because my mother thought she could not get pregnant. She
could. Or is this more of your imaginary god barking secret messages in
your ear.
> You STILL don't understand. Agnostics expressly disclaim knowing "the
> truth." That's what differentiates them from agnostics.
Who gives a shit, not even l;ittle old ladies from Pasadena. You are
still under the impression that your claims & pretensions are applicable
to everyone else, they aren't. Just as mine aren't. tThe difference, I
know & accept that.
>> By the way, be assured that by now, if I was dissing everybody all,
>> they would have informed me. I have been in and out of this newsgroup
>> since 1995. I suspect that what little I have to say carries more
>> weight than everything individuated in your close to 3000 messages
>> across USENET.
>
> Quantitative analysis, eh? Higher and deeper means better? More is
> better? Only your capacity to think clearly matters. You display some
> difficulties with that.
No, but atheists as a group will let you know when you are stepping on
what is not supposed be shown publicli. Again, you try to apply your
wishes & concerns to others.
>> Any questions, ask your missing god. Otherwise, feel free to
>> terminate your end of the conversation, it's not like a contributing
>> anything. But it's like you cannot contribute anything and simply
>> must repeat your mantra. Atheism is a faith, which is a lie in any
>> sense of the word that I've ever encountered.
>
> So you say, my friend. But what choice have you given your sadistic
> priorities.
First, my friend, the last one alive, is not you. That is another lie
you have told.
& sadisic, only according to you. But then, many things you assume do
not pass the old realiy check. It's thjat lacka you have.
> It's not always a reasoned position, sometimes
>> it's intuitive, sometimes a reaction against what people of faith
>> have claimed. The question of a gods existence is worthy of
>> consideration, which of course it is not. If you were to be a god,
>> wouldn't even recognize humanity as being worthy of notice or in need
>> of interference with? Not if it's as described in the claims of
>> humanity.
>
> The claims of logic in light of man's limitations are what drives
Logic does not need to be true, but only logical.
> agnosticism. Maundering about what's "worthy of consideration" is a
> cop out. It demonstrates that you can not cope with the implications
> of our limited capacity and knowledge. As I say, atheists seem to me
> to be more interested in lashing out than in the ideas involved.
> Agnostics are laid-back, relaxed, non-missionary.
Then why do you tout agnostic thinking as mandatory on others. It isn't.
> You cannot
>> even define this guy thingy you are so concerned about, and yet you
>> expect the atheist crew do jump on your little Showboat and applaud
>> you for your discernment & courage in bringing it to our attention.
>
> You still don't understand. We're dealing with the implications of
> human limitations. Definitions are obviously impossible. That's part
> of the necessity of suspending judgment.
I do understand you. If yiou concern yuoursdelf with anything that you
can';t even decribe, you are bullshitting yourself. Unfortunately, you
lack the courtesy to keep it to yourself.
> You
>> don't even understand what atheism is and yet, you're going to make
>> vast proclamations about what it must be, because you don't
>> understand that we simply don't give a damn about your god thingies.
>
> You pose no difficulties of comprehension. Not giving a damn is an
> attitude, not a philosophical position. It's also proof that you're
Inactive, unlike your fear based belief. If not fear based, why bother.
> not even an atheist. Atheism isn't about whether you give a damn. Even
> a man of your culture should be able to see the difference between not
> giving a damn and "God doesn't exist."
The two are compatable. After all, atheism, ikn spite of your
pretension, is simply a lack of a god belief. The question doesn't even
come up until he p;ompous asses of usenet show up.
> They are your
>> beliefs, your handicap, we elect, or at least in my case I have
>> elected, that, i based on the lack of evidencet's not worth the skull
>> sweat involved in the consideration of, should I take a dump behind
>> this bush a walk 3 feet to the outhouse. Not really anything worth
>> getting excited over. Of course, it is your privilege and right to
>> believe otherwise, but it is not your privilege or right to demand
>> others concur with your myopic point of view.
>
> Here's the smoking gun straight from your own mouth: "....based on the
> lack of evidencet's not worth the skull sweat..." You're an agnostic.
I am agnostic about many things, but I do not bother with inane questions
& posturings. Now, define this god thingie you are worried about.
> At bottom line most of you are. You admit to yourselves that you
> simply don't know but you badly want to bash and therefore adopt a
> policy of aggressive ignorance and calll it atheism.
I prefer not to bash anyone, but then, I am not above wipieing your nose
in your mess.
>> walksalone who doubts that Hunter will understand any of this, after
>> all is contrary to what he believes. And believe this case is used in
>> the worst sense of the word.
>
> People with poor nerves frequently say the opposite of what they are
> thinking.
Then you don't worry about a god thingie? ou will find, that when you
finally make an argument & support it, very few people say the opposite
of what they are thinking. It's a personal ethics thing.
>> "Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said
>> he, "That when they speak truth they are not believed."
> Poor Aristotle, to be upstaged by the boy who cried "wolf".
Who got ate by the wolf because like you, he told to many falsehoods.
But then, you stay confused over so many simple concepts.
Now, if you are ready to present an argument & support it, feel free to
start a new thread. No one seems to be buying your bullshit, or your
posturing.
walksalone who has no doubt Hunter believes his tripe, but he has to.
No one else is obligated to accept it on his say so.
Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers
than thinkers.
[Bruce Calvert]
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Piggyback...
>
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:43:56 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>
>
>
I've clipped all but the most brilliant aspects of CHRISTopher A.
Lee's reply to Trance Gemini. The heart of it remains:
> Liar.
> Liar.
> Liar.
> Liar.
> .....liar?
> .....liar.
> Liar.
> Liar.
> Asshole.
> Liar.
> Liar.
> Liar.
> Liar.
Trance Gemini
wrote:
Actually that was Christopher's reply to *your* comments/responses to
me *and* to Christopher.
I agree with his responses to your comments.
You appear to enjoy being deceptive and playing the troll rather than
actually having a discussion on anything.
I'm done.
CYA.
Christopher A. Lee
<trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 7:38�pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 12:27�pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Piggyback...
>>
>> > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:43:56 -0800 (PST), Trance Gemini
>>
>> > <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've clipped all but the most brilliant aspects of CHRISTopher A.
>> Lee's reply to Trance Gemini. The heart of it remains:
Ooh looky here, a standard pathetic attempt to insult.
>> > Liar.
>> > Liar.
>> > Liar.
>> > Liar.
>> > .....liar?
>> > .....liar.
>> > Liar.
>>
>> �> Liar.
>>
>> > Asshole.
>> > Liar.
>> > Liar.
>> > Liar.
>> > Liar.
>
>Actually that was Christopher's reply to *your* comments/responses to
>me *and* to Christopher.
>
>I agree with his responses to your comments.
Do they honestly not realise the message they send when they delete
what the "liar" was in response to?
If it weren't a lie they would have left it there to prove I was
wrong.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Adios