What exactly is Atheisim?
Tariq Ilyas
Please help
Chris Kennedy
"Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism:
>Please help
Lack of belief in gods. More info at
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html. Read it.
--
Chris Kennedy
Atheist #641
lyrdragon at geocities dot com
Remove the deity to send e-mail
Cabrutus
Tariq Ilyas <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bd63fc$af619bc0$02a2a8c3@migp266>...
> Please help
>
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods.
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820 -- EAC conspirator #29
loc...@geocities.SPAMMERS.SUCK.PAT.ROBERTSON.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/atheism.html
"Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom
and compassion to make it so that the baby giraffe
falls several feet and lands on its head at birth." -- Cretinism or
Evilution? Nos. 4&5
The Dodo
On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
>Please help
Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
A regression of spiritual development caused by many factors,
including, but not limited to, misinterpretation, resentment,
powerful, but misused and abused intelligence, sin, arrogance,
pride, sexual preoccupation, insanity(not necessarily condemnatory),
greed, stupidity, ignorance, lack of perception, conceit, lack of
self-esteem, appearance, behavior, hate, love, refusal, childhood
experiences, upbringing, stagnant mentality, and spiritual death.
It is correct to note that theism shares many of these causes
as well, however, these are regarded by theists as fortunate.
The Dodo
Charles Fiterman
Tariq Ilyas wrote:
> Please help
First its spelled atheism.
It most commonly means denying the existence or
divinity of the god or gods you were brought up with.
That is if someone says "The Christian god doesn't
exist the divine Caligula told me." Christians will
say he is an atheist and he will say Christians are
atheists. It is not unusual for Southern Baptists to
say Catholics are atheists in this news group.
People who say they are atheists deny the existence
or divinity of all gods or claim they are remote from
human affairs. Many atheists only claim to have no
gods. I find it hard to deny the existence of Caligula
and since the Roman Senate controlled the Roman
religion the way Parliament controls the Church of
England and they declared him a god, I find I cannot
deny his divinity. I can only say he isn't mine.
This is the answer of Epicureans such as Suetonius
at the time. Further I go out in cold whether singing
fairly theological Christian songs with Christian
friends. Words are not magic to atheists. Epicureans
similarly had no problem participating in public
ceremonies worshiping Caligula who was real,
a god, and hardly remote from human affairs.
A simpler test is that no one should be called an
atheist if they do not use that label on themselves.
We are not an insult. No religion accepts people
as members who deny being members with the
possible exception of some forms of Judaism.
Chani
The Dodo wrote in message <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>as well, however, these are regarded by theists as fortunate.
Damn, you beat me to it; I was going to say that! I would say that the
majority of the above statement describes theists more accurately than
atheist's. Theists are the ones who insist on believing in fairy tales.
Also, I don't deny that you exist.
Chani
Atheist #1118; my email is c.overli @ worldnet. att. net.
remove spaces.
See the map of atheist's locations at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
*****************************************************
"We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows."
- Robert Frost
*****************************************************
>
>
> The Dodo
>
Jessica Wolfman
Atheism is the lack of belief in any and all entities that are referred
to as gods.
That's pretty much it.
Jessica Wolfman
"The human animal differs from the lesser primates in his passion for
lists of 'Ten Best'."
--H. Allan Smith
Liz
>On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Please help
>
>
> Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
>"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
>A regression of spiritual development caused by many factors,
>including, but not limited to, misinterpretation, resentment,
>powerful, but misused and abused intelligence, sin, arrogance,
>pride, sexual preoccupation, insanity(not necessarily condemnatory),
>greed, stupidity, ignorance, lack of perception, conceit, lack of
>self-esteem, appearance, behavior, hate, love, refusal, childhood
>experiences, upbringing, stagnant mentality, and spiritual death.
>
> It is correct to note that theism shares many of these causes
>as well, however, these are regarded by theists as fortunate.
>
>
> The Dodo
>
Now you've done it. You have made me laugh. A lot.
(Don't laugh. You will only encourage him. )
<rotflol>
Liz #658
If you don't know where you are going, most likely you
will end up somewhere else.
Puck Greenman
In article <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>, The Dodo
<mauriti...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Please help
>
>
>
> Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
>"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
So which of my five sences ie it that perceves the "pulsar" or
the "black hole"?
> The Dodo
At least your name makes sense, your attitude is as extinct as
the bird from which you take your name.
OK,
that is the opinion of the superstious masses, the truth is much
simpler.
Athiest: A= without, theos= god.
As simple as that, atheists recognise no gods.
You will find fundys who will do and say anything to try an show
that it is something else.
We generaly refer to that as " lieing for god".
The atheists in this NG tend to extend the "without god" to
"without supernatural beings of any kind".
This realy pisses the fundys off, xtian mostly, as they are no
longer able to claim that we believe in something supernatural.
In response they try to say that as we do not believe in god,
note that they have limited it to one god, we must believe that
there is *no* god.
They are totaly incapable of accepting that it is possable to
live a life without some form of unproven belief in some thing.
They are wrong, but you will never convince them, fear is an
evil thing.
-- ################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here, #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
################################################
g&g #750
Chani <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote in article
<6gma4n$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> The Dodo wrote in message <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
> >On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk>
wrote:
> >
> >>Please help
> >
> >
> >
> > Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
> >"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
> >A regression of spiritual development caused by many factors,
> >including, but not limited to, misinterpretation, resentment,
> >powerful, but misused and abused intelligence, sin, arrogance,
> >pride, sexual preoccupation, insanity(not necessarily condemnatory),
> >greed, stupidity, ignorance, lack of perception, conceit, lack of
> >self-esteem, appearance, behavior, hate, love, refusal, childhood
> >experiences, upbringing, stagnant mentality, and spiritual death.
Glenn R. wrote:
Sounds like a description of most christians I have known. So what is your
point? You could apply any of those things or any combination of those
things to just about anyone. Again, what is your point?
I know a lot of atheists who demonstrate none of those characteristics and
some that demonstrate some of them. Again, what is your point?
Nothing you have said in your pitiful attempt to describe atheists has any
basis whatsoever. You want to believe atheists are bad people, that is
your choice but to paint them all with such a broad brush is a perfect
example of prejudice. Bigotry would be another term for it. Is such
blatant bigotry what you learned from jesus, the one who you worship? Are
you proud that you speak so all-knowingly about a subject about which you
obviously know nothing? Isn't that dishonest. Is lying what you learned
from jesus, the one you worship?
> >
> > It is correct to note that theism shares many of these causes
> >as well, however, these are regarded by theists as fortunate.
>
Therion Ware
>On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Please help
>
>
>
> Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
Um, I hate to bring this up, but I think you'll find that "I am who I
am" is idiomatic hebrew for "mind your own business," and would
certainly have been understood by Moses in that way. Quite what this
says about God, remains open to question, but I don't think the omens
are good, to say nothing of the portents and signs.
>"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
I knew all along that those atoms and things were a hoax designed to
lead us fro the true path.
>A regression of spiritual development caused by many factors,
>including, but not limited to, misinterpretation, resentment,
>powerful, but misused and abused intelligence, sin, arrogance,
>pride, sexual preoccupation, insanity(not necessarily condemnatory),
>greed, stupidity, ignorance, lack of perception, conceit, lack of
>self-esteem, appearance, behavior, hate, love, refusal, childhood
>experiences, upbringing, stagnant mentality, and spiritual death.
You forgot a profound moral sense.
> It is correct to note that theism shares many of these causes
>as well, however, these are regarded by theists as fortunate.
which is something largely lacking in theists.
-----
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis, and it's Pandemonium; for "why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
------ ------
Visit The City of Dis at: <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/index.html>
See The Banned Banner at: <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/linkx/banner.html>
Evil Atheist Conspiracy : <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/eac/eac-oath.html>
------
remove .eac from address to send email. Site updated: 09 Apr 1998 - 04:30 GMT.
E.A.C. Member #81
The Dodo
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:57:21 +0100, Puck Greenman <Pu...@intangiblesinc.force9.net> wrote:
>In article <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>, The Dodo
><mauriti...@hotmail.com> writes
>>On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Please help
>>
>>
>>
>> Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
>>"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
>
>
> So which of my five sences ie it that perceves the "pulsar" or
> the "black hole"?
Your eyes and ears, of course, flashing and burning respectively, as you sense
this upon the telly, radio, journal or textbook occasionally prepared with
originality and infallibly praised by the opposite of such creations.
>> The Dodo
> At least your name makes sense, your attitude is as extinct as
> the bird from which you take your name.
Sir, I'll have you know that several complete skeletons and preserved remains
of the dodo exist...some, if not all, in the British Museum. Extinct?!...Preposterous!
I am their living representative and of "I AM" who created us all.
>
> OK,
> that is the opinion of the superstious masses, the truth is much
There is only one Truth...the Truth of "I AM". Say "opinion"...it's far more in keeping
with your signature.
> simpler.
> Athiest: A= without, theos= god.
> As simple as that, atheists recognise no gods.
> You will find fundys who will do and say anything to try an show
> that it is something else.
I do not deny the existence of a "genuine" atheist...Adam's "ancestors",
as atheism and others contend, were undoubtedly such, as well as the
rest of the fauna. Theism is one of the differences between man and
the animals.
> We generaly refer to that as " lieing for god".
> The atheists in this NG tend to extend the "without god" to
> "without supernatural beings of any kind".
> This realy pisses the fundys off, xtian mostly, as they are no
> longer able to claim that we believe in something supernatural.
I am completely indifferent to this.
> In response they try to say that as we do not believe in god,
> note that they have limited it to one god, we must believe that
> there is *no* god.
> They are totaly incapable of accepting that it is possable to
> live a life without some form of unproven belief in some thing.
Nonsense! Of course it's possible...wholly retarded in that the physical
denies the spiritual.
> They are wrong, but you will never convince them, fear is an
> evil thing.
I and other theists fear atheism like I fear a feather. I think it has alot to do
with meeting someone who's good and personable and yet, an atheist. A
theist should feel, as I do, that this friend will not be able to share in the afterlife
if he continues this denial. It's like leaving a child behind when all the others are
going somewhere really grand. If I had a nickel each time this has occurred since
the beginning...I could buy all the toys I want...like a 1925 Rolls-Royce Phantom I,
solid black, even the wire-spoked rims...yet in front, that classic grill. Who may
empathise with the Dodo?
Timothy Sutter
Puck Greenman wrote:
>
> In article <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>, The Dodo
> <mauriti...@hotmail.com> writes
> >On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Please help
> >
> >
> >
> > Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
> >"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
>
> So which of my five sences ie it that perceves the "pulsar" or
> the "black hole"?
> At least your name makes sense, your attitude is as extinct as
> the bird from which you take your name.
>
> that is the opinion of the superstious masses, the truth is much
> Athiest: A= without, theos= god.
> As simple as that, atheists recognise no gods.
this is what your FAQ says puck.
it's not quite as simple as that.
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by a deliberate (that is, chosen)
absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists go further,
and believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist.
Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
position. Believing that gods do not (or cannot)
exist is known as "strong atheism".
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god':
Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of
debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never
encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
It is important, however, to note the difference between
the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple
scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism"
is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into
the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions;
it's not just a matter of degree.
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods;
others limit their atheism to specific Gods,
such as the Christian God,
rather than making flat-out denials.
The Dodo
On 11 Apr 1998 01:14:57 GMT, "g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
>Chani <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote in article
><6gma4n$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>> The Dodo wrote in message <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>> >On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >>Please help
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
>> >"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
>> >A regression of spiritual development caused by many factors,
>> >including, but not limited to, misinterpretation, resentment,
>> >powerful, but misused and abused intelligence, sin, arrogance,
>> >pride, sexual preoccupation, insanity(not necessarily condemnatory),
>> >greed, stupidity, ignorance, lack of perception, conceit, lack of
>> >self-esteem, appearance, behavior, hate, love, refusal, childhood
>> >experiences, upbringing, stagnant mentality, and spiritual death.
>
>Glenn R. wrote:
>Sounds like a description of most christians I have known. So what is your
>point? You could apply any of those things or any combination of those
>things to just about anyone. Again, what is your point?
>
>I know a lot of atheists who demonstrate none of those characteristics and
>some that demonstrate some of them. Again, what is your point?
>
>Nothing you have said in your pitiful attempt to describe atheists has any
>basis whatsoever. You want to believe atheists are bad people, that is
>your choice but to paint them all with such a broad brush is a perfect
>example of prejudice. Bigotry would be another term for it. Is such
>blatant bigotry what you learned from jesus, the one who you worship? Are
>you proud that you speak so all-knowingly about a subject about which you
>obviously know nothing? Isn't that dishonest. Is lying what you learned
>from jesus, the one you worship?
I have wrote what I believe to be true...no more, no less. You call it a lie
because you wish for it to be so. My belief is due to many of those reasons
and the consequent lessons learned from them. Atheism is simply due to
those reasons with very few lessons learned.
I am an enemy of atheism, not personally those affected by it. One can and
does fight against disease...cancer, for instance...yet by no means would
one ignore those affected by it...they treat them and educate others as to
it's severity, potential harm, and what can be done to prevent it. No good
person wants others to die. Atheism is a spiritual disease which causes
spiritual death. Spiritual and Physical being constitutes a whole...day and
night...positive and negative...black and white (groups of humanity teach
us this as well)...earth and water...fire and sky...male and female...good
and evil...beauty and ugliness...smooth and rough...young and old...hot
and cold...et cetera.
Existence is forever back and forever forward...no beginning...no end. If you
were at the beginning, could there not have been a day before, or a day after
the end? "I AM" is the infinite universe and infuses everything within and
without.
Racism is the intolerance of another group of humanity and a spiritual disease.
It denies a part of the whole. It rejects "I AM" who created both and all.
Atheism is the intolerance of the spiritual part of the whole and denies it's
existence and rejects "I AM" who created both and all.
The Dodo
>
>
>> >
>> > It is correct to note that theism shares many of these causes
>> >as well, however, these are regarded by theists as fortunate.
>>
Stix
Tariq Ilyas posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Please help
"Atheisim" (Atheisimus chlorotica) are terrestrial annelids, best
described as a species of very small green grub. They belong to the
class "Oligochaeta," occupy habitats in close proximity to elm trees or
in ornamental shrubberies, and subsist almost entirely on the visual
appeal of certain cloud formations.
Atheisim grubs are generally not inclined to perform arithmetic and tend
to remain placid unless aurally provoked. Upon provocation their upper
epidermal tissue changes from green to a bright purple and the stripes
on their lower epidermal tissue become an iridescent yellow.
The grubs sometimes make a low humming noise except on Wednesdays and
Saturdays, wherein the humming becomes more of a warbled kind of
whistle. This is believed to have absolutely nothing to do with sailing
ships, china teacups, or small balls of string, but may possibly be
related to the appearance of assorted advertisements for jewellery in
various colour publications.
The chief provocations to induce the Atheisim grub's colour-change
reaction include the name "Simon," and the words, "colander," "ocelot,"
and "zinc pyridene thione." The utterance of such words is best
performed after midday, although if it hasn't rained one can usually say
"ocelot" without a noticeable effect (there's also one recorded instance
of someone saying "Simon" without effect, however it occurred late on a
Monday evening which may have skewed the observation).
Once provoked into colour change, Atheisim grubs tend to gather in
clusters, moving in unison to form the outlines of two dimensional
geometric shapes; most commonly the trapezoid although there are several
observed instances of isosceles triangles, and the occasional rhombus.
At the polygon assembly point, one must avoid saying the words
"descendant," "synonym," and "motorcycle," because those words will
cause polygon-assembled Atheisim grubs to attempt calculating a division
of zero, but most importantly one should NEVER say "endocrine,"
irrespective of the difficulty of restraint.
Indeed, even muttering "endocrine" under your breath can incite the
grubs into an obsessive compulsion to calculate Pi to the
one-hundred-and-seventeen-thousandth decimal place, resulting in
restlessness, the faint odour of figs, and a silvery stain on any nearby
vertical surface.
Hope this helps.
Bibliography: Edmark, C. A., and Loiten, J. R., "The Biology of Atheisim
grubs," 3rd ed. (1987); Geldie, Ross E., "Atheisim grubs for Geometry
and Pi calculus," 2 vols. (1985, 1987); Leigh, F. E., "Atheisim grubs,
the perils of saying 'endocrine,'" (1992); Stellar, B. J., "Atheisim
Grubs - the Irrelevance of being Ambidextrous." (1994)
Stix.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"....my shoe is off, my foot is cold,
I have a bird I like to hold.
My hat is old, my teeth are gold,
And now my story is all told......."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Dark Fader
The Doo-Doo Dodo babbled: (Nino-nino-nino!).
> I am their living representative and of "I AM" who created us all.
WOW!
Did you see (hear) that?
(Are the white coats here yet? I'll keep him busy until they get here).
> I do not deny the existence of a "genuine" atheist...Adam's "ancestors",
> as atheism and others contend, were undoubtedly such, as well as the
> rest of the fauna. Theism is one of the differences between man and
> the animals.
What an ex-spurt!
He knows every thing!
Shall we follow 'him'?
(Only the cerebrally less capable, no?).
Ah, yes!
Fiction and non-fact, from the Doo-Doos almanac!
And BOTH know the difference, right?
(I had this theism part right here, but it detached and I can't find it
any more).
Now, where can man and animals 'find it'? Up your ass? Doo-Doo?
That's where its at!
> I am completely indifferent to this.
Of course you are!
That's why we have to talk to you like this.
When we talk to you as if you were an adult, you don't listen.
> Nonsense! Of course it's possible...wholly retarded in that the physical
> denies the spiritual.
Wha?
".....physical denies the spiritual...."?
Like you deny reality, no doubt.
> I and other theists fear atheism like I fear a feather.
That's right. If you were on the train tracks and didn't know what a
train was, you'd think it was a feather coming!
> I think it has alot to do
> with meeting someone who's good and personable and yet, an atheist.
How would you know? You have no idea what atheism is, or what the
'CONSEQUENCES' of any other philosophy is, for that matter, including
your 'own'.
(One word comes to mind for YOURS: DESTRUCTIVE).
> A
> theist should feel, as I do, that this friend will not be able to share in the afterlife
> if he continues this denial.
What? Share in something that is only a creation of your own twisted
mind?
You've proved nothing, yet you want everyone to join you in your brand
of idiotic 'belief!
You're mad! As a hatter! (Remember Alice?).
There is no 'afterlife' (The evidence is overwhelming!).
When you die, you're dust.
No eyes to see with
No ears to hear with.
No legs to walk with.
Nothing.
Just nothing.
Just like before you were born.
But whats so bad about that?
Better than YOUR idea of an after life!
Having to go around ALL day kissing some monumental egos feet
incessantly is not my idea of the good life!
Besides, I can't play the harp.
> It's like leaving a child behind when all the others are
> going somewhere really grand.
Yeah. What a pretty tale! Some one come back from the dead and told you
all about it did they? In person?
Any more twisted tales to fit your stupid beliefs?
I'm sure you have a lot more.
> If I had a nickel each time this has occurred since
> the beginning...I could buy all the toys I want...like a 1925 Rolls-Royce Phantom I,
> solid black, even the wire-spoked rims...yet in front, that classic grill. Who may
> empathise with the Dodo?
We ALL do.
We see the rampant visible effects of what a religion can do to an
otherwise weak mind, which ,if only left to it's own devices, would only
self-destruct anyway, so, believe in your little fairey tales, they will
give YOU solace when your mind is a its weakest. (Which is most of the
time).
Prove otherwise.
Bet you can't.
Put up or shut the fuck up!
Now, get outta here!
Dip.
.
Dark Fader
Timothy Sutter pedanticised, and quite well:
> Atheism is characterized by a deliberate (that is, chosen)
> absence of belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists go further,
> and believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist.
> Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
> position. Believing that gods do not (or cannot)
> exist is known as "strong atheism".
> Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god':
> Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of
> debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never
> encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
Oh, we think there may be some usefulness and merit in the discussion of
it.
Any 'reasonable' discussion should be entertained.
Or do you self-censor?
And:
Are you so absolutely sure of your absolute statement?
> It is important, however, to note the difference between
> the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple
> scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism"
> is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into
> the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
> There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions;
> it's not just a matter of degree.
Yes.
Just like it says in the FAQ's.
> Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods;
> others limit their atheism to specific Gods,
> such as the Christian God,
> rather than making flat-out denials.
Are you really sure of this?
But, anyway;
Why Timothy, you must have been at least briefing the FAQ's.
You did that so well, which brand of atheist are you?
Doesn't it take one to really 'know' one?
Or, been there, done it, seen it?
Even Aristotle thought that a physician should have the disease before
he could 'treat' that particular disease!
Can you really 'empathise' if you haven't 'been there'?
There are those who insist upon this!
Yes?
?
.
Timothy Sutter
> Yes?
> ?
> .
firstly, that is your FAQ. the infidel site.
I just went there and copied and pasted it because
I knew it differred from what puck said.
that an atheist isn't just the meaning of the word.
second, as I have stated more than once,
I was an atheist when I was a teenager.
precocious youth that I was, you won't convince
me that I was not a "real" atheist.
I went to public schools,
had no religious education,
and never went to church.
but I didn't simply "lack knowledge or belief"
because I became aware of all the good "arguments"
that attempted to contradict the existance of God.
and I was an all too willing participant in their propagation.
as a youngster, I was quite sure there was no god.
I did like Dracula movies though.
at this time, I am not atheist.
not because someone came along with a more convincing lie.
I think I've explained a bit in other posts.
if it is of interest,
I'd be more than happy to rephrase it.
Chani
The Dodo wrote in message <353d322b...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>On 11 Apr 1998 01:14:57 GMT, "g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Chani <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote in article
>><6gma4n$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>
>>> The Dodo wrote in message <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>>> >On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> >
<snip>
<snip>
>I have wrote what I believe to be true...no more, no less. You call it a
lie
>because you wish for it to be so. My belief is due to many of those
reasons
>and the consequent lessons learned from them. Atheism is simply due to
>those reasons with very few lessons learned.
You are incorrect. Where religion requires blind faith, atheism relies on
lessons learned and taught.
Also, I, nor many other atheist I know, deny the existence of a higher
being, your I AM; we just happen to know there does not exist such a
creature outside of fairy tales. I base my knowledge on the fact that there
has been thousands of gods/higher beings, at least and as many different
religions that follow those god/higher beings; not to mention the historical
facts gleaned from earlier societies. There is no evidence for you god, but
if you choose to believe in your I AM, that's fine; what works for you is
what is best for you, we atheists choose not to be deluded. What makes your
god more believable than the other gods that came before, or since your god?
>
>I am an enemy of atheism, not personally those affected by it. One can and
>does fight against disease...cancer, for instance...yet by no means would
>one ignore those affected by it...they treat them and educate others as to
>it's severity, potential harm, and what can be done to prevent it.
Atheism is not a disease, and we by no means want nor require your
assistance. Atheists do not suffer any harm from a lack of delusion, but I
can quote all sorts of harm your and other's beliefs have caused, and still
cause.
> No good
>person wants others to die.
Forcing your deluded world view on others does not make you a good person,
just an irritant.
>Atheism is a spiritual disease which causes
>spiritual death. Spiritual and Physical being constitutes a whole...day
and
>night...positive and negative...black and white (groups of humanity teach
>us this as well)...earth and water...fire and sky...male and female...good
>and evil...beauty and ugliness...smooth and rough...young and old...hot
>and cold...et cetera.
Baloney!!
>
>Existence is forever back and forever forward...no beginning...no end. If
you
>were at the beginning, could there not have been a day before, or a day
after
>the end? "I AM" is the infinite universe and infuses everything within and
>without.
The beginning of what? There have been billions of beginnings. I was at
the beginning of my life, my mother at hers, the earth was at the beginning
of its existence and so on.
>
>Racism is the intolerance of another group of humanity and a spiritual
disease.
>It denies a part of the whole. It rejects "I AM" who created both and all.
This is the biggest bunch of bull puckey! Atheism does not breed racism
although religion often does. You are the one who is showing intolerance by
posting this baloney here, and trying to force your world view down
atheist's throats! What do you fear from us that you can't leave us be?
>
>Atheism is the intolerance of the spiritual part of the whole and denies
it's
>existence and rejects "I AM" who created both and all.
Your god no matter what you call it does not create anything. It is just a
fantasy! Did you get that? A FANTASY! My mother and my father created me,
as my husband and I created our children. This is done by that little thing
called sex. Do you understand? Probably not because one of your basic
tenets is to force your fantasy on others, and deny the creativity and
wonder of the world.
Intolerance, your name is religion!
Chani
Atheist #1118; my email is c.overli @ worldnet. att. net.
remove spaces.
See the map of atheist's locations at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
*****************************************************
"We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows."
- Robert Frost
*****************************************************
<snip>
Puck Greenman
In article <353c1f51...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>, The Dodo
<mauriti...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:57:21 +0100, Puck Greenman <Pu...@intangiblesinc.force9.ne
>t> wrote:
>
>Your eyes and ears, of course, flashing and burning respectively, as you sense
>this upon the telly, radio, journal or textbook occasionally prepared with
>originality and infallibly praised by the opposite of such creations.
Well I wouldn't go as far as "flashing and burning", but I will
take your point.
>
>Sir, I'll have you know that several complete skeletons and preserved remains
>of the dodo exist...some, if not all, in the British Museum.
>Extinct?!...Preposterous!
>I am their living representative and of "I AM" who created us all.
I still maintain. Extinct, But who am I to argue against such
Devotion?
>>
>> OK,
>> that is the opinion of the superstious masses, the truth is much
>There is only one Truth...the Truth of "I AM". Say "opinion"...it's far more in
>keeping
>with your signature.
Oh come now sir, you seem to know my history, when has my
opinion ever been wrong, even regarding your "white god"?
>> simpler.
>> Athiest: A= without, theos= god.
>> As simple as that, atheists recognise no gods.
>> You will find fundys who will do and say anything to try an show
>> that it is something else.
>I do not deny the existence of a "genuine" atheist...Adam's "ancestors",
A novel thought, the fore bares of the first man.
>as atheism and others contend, were undoubtedly such, as well as the
>rest of the fauna.
> Theism is one of the differences between man and
>the animals.
If that is the choice, I chose the animals.
>> We generaly refer to that as " lieing for god".
>> The atheists in this NG tend to extend the "without god" to
>> "without supernatural beings of any kind".
>> This realy pisses the fundys off, xtian mostly, as they are no
>> longer able to claim that we believe in something supernatural.
>I am completely indifferent to this.
That has to be in your favour.
>> In response they try to say that as we do not believe in god,
>> note that they have limited it to one god, we must believe that
>> there is *no* god.
>> They are totaly incapable of accepting that it is possable to
>> live a life without some form of unproven belief in some thing.
>Nonsense! Of course it's possible...wholly retarded in that the physical
>denies the spiritual.
Problem is that it is only by faith that we can even begin to
even guess at the spiritual, where as the physical is all
around us .
>> They are wrong, but you will never convince them, fear is an
>> evil thing.
>I and other theists fear atheism like I fear a feather.
Yes, properly applied, a feather can bring a smile, and that is
not suitable before the "Lord"
>I think it has alot to
>do
>with meeting someone who's good and personable and yet, an atheist.
I try, we all do.
> A
>theist should feel, as I do, that this friend will not be able to share in the
>afterlife
>if he continues this denial.
That is just it, we do not deny, it is just that there is no
evidance.
Thomas was given even evidance, and then was told
"Blessed are ye who have seen and have believed"
Yet we who are not allowed to see are cursed?
Thomas walked and talked with this man, eat and drank with him,
shared the good times and the bad, yet Thomas was blessed even
though he asked for proof.
We have not had that experiance, yet we are cursed because we
ask for proof;
Is that the act of a fair and just god?
> It's like leaving a child behind when all the
>others are
>going somewhere really grand. If I had a nickel each time this has occurred
>since
>the beginning...I could buy all the toys I want...like a 1925 Rolls-Royce
>Phantom I,
>solid black, even the wire-spoked rims...yet in front, that classic grill. Who
>may
>empathise with the Dodo?
More than you know Dodo, More than you know.
And try not to pick up my sig next time, a decent news reader
would have ignored it.
Dodo, you seem basicly inteligent, with a sense of the
obsurd(sp). I could even like you, you will have to do some
thing about that, it is bad for our respective images :-).
Puck Greenman
In article <352F3C...@geocities.com>, Timothy Sutter
<tsu...@geocities.com> writes
>Puck Greenman wrote:
>>
>> Athiest: A= without, theos= god.
>> As simple as that, atheists recognise no gods.
>
Why, so it is, we cant both be wrong.
>
>it's not quite as simple as that.
Actualy it is.
>
>
>
>"What is atheism?"
>
>Atheism is characterized by a deliberate (that is, chosen)
>absence of belief in the existence of gods.
Now that is where you make your mistake, it is not chosen; If
you knew how hard I prayed, how long I prayed, you would weep
for me.
>Some atheists go further,
>and believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist.
You must admit, there is not a cornucopia of evidence for any of
them.
>
>Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
>position. Believing that gods do not (or cannot)
>exist is known as "strong atheis
Yes, so your point is?
>
>Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god':
> Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of
>debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never
>encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...
Granted
>
>It is important, however, to note the difference between
>the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple
>scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism"
>is a positive belief that God does not exist.
An interesting thought, but not one that I totaly subscribe to.
>Please do not fall into
>the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
I have walked this road so long, that I see the trap, long
before the trapper knows that it is there.
>
>There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions;
>it's not just a matter of degree.
Not realy, it is merely different ways of looking at the same
lack of evidence.
>
>Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods;
>others limit their atheism to specific Gods,
>such as the Christian God,
No, because you "disbelieve" in specific gods, in fact all but
the xtian god,and by your defination, that would make you an
atheist , and as I only believe in one less god than you, what
would that make me?
>rather than making flat-out denials.
If there is no evidance I will normaly say, "it aint so", and
that goes for gods, and fairies at the bottom of my garden,
although, there is more evidance for the fairies, after all I am
Puck.
I have just started brewing my own, after about ten years of
commersial(SP) brews, and it is worrying me;
Timmy is starting to make sense.
Am I loosing my mind, or have I just got the recipy(SP) right?
Al Klein
>On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:57:21 +0100, Puck Greenman <Pu...@intangiblesinc.force9.net> wrote:
>>> The Dodo
>> At least your name makes sense, your attitude is as extinct as
>> the bird from which you take your name.
>Sir, I'll have you know that several complete skeletons and preserved remains
>of the dodo exist...some, if not all, in the British Museum. Extinct?!...Preposterous!
>I am their living representative and of "I AM" who created us all.
Uh, oh. I sense a second coming coming. Son of a dodo bird and god.
God's impregnating birds now?
>Theism is one of the differences between man and the animals.
Only man is silly enough to be theistic. The OTHER animals (we're not
vegetable or mineral, Dodo, so we're animal) are too smart to fall for
fairy tales.
>A theist should feel, as I do, that this friend will not be able to share in the afterlife
>if he continues this denial.
Not that it's any of your business.
>It's like leaving a child behind when all the others are
>going somewhere really grand.
That's what religion is? A day at the circus?
>If I had a nickel each time this has occurred since
>the beginning...I could buy all the toys I want...like a 1925 Rolls-Royce Phantom I,
>solid black, even the wire-spoked rims...yet in front, that classic grill. Who may
>empathise with the Dodo?
Another "theist" who's more interested in acquiring a Rolls than in
sticking his nose OUT of others' business. Where I go when I die,
god-botherer, is none of your concern. Unless you want to pay for the
funeral.
---
Al
aklein at villagenet dot com
Al Klein
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 10:20:40 GMT, st...@BAAWA.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>Tariq Ilyas posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>Please help
>"Atheisim" (Atheisimus chlorotica) are terrestrial annelids, best
>described as a species of very small green grub. They belong to the
>class "Oligochaeta," occupy habitats in close proximity to elm trees or
>in ornamental shrubberies, and subsist almost entirely on the visual
>appeal of certain cloud formations.
Twisted, Stix. Truly great and twisted. My hat's off and all that.
Al Klein
> A novel thought, the fore bares of the first man.
Reminds me of a story.
"The last man on Earth sat at a table. There was a knock on the door.
. . ."
Dark Fader
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> firstly, that is your FAQ. the infidel site.
Infidel?
To a muslim, YOU are an "infidel"! (Or any other religion, for that
matter).
So what do YOU mean when you use that term?
You are an infidel.
It simply depends on where you happen to stand at any given time.
Thus you, too, are an 'infidel'!
> I just went there and copied and pasted it because
> I knew it differred from what puck said.
We know.
>
> that an atheist isn't just the meaning of the word.
>
> second, as I have stated more than once,
> I was an atheist when I was a teenager.
> precocious youth that I was, you won't convince
> me that I was not a "real" atheist.
Well, what 'happened' to you?
Did the 'debble get a holt of your lapel'?
Did you "get religion", in all the senselessness that that implies?
> I went to public schools,
> had no religious education,
> and never went to church.
No penalty for that.
At least you weren't brainwashed at an early age.
> but I didn't simply "lack knowledge or belief"
Of course. No one lives in a 'vacuum'.
> because I became aware of all the good "arguments"
> that attempted to contradict the existance of God.
And where did you obtain these 'arguments'?
> and I was an all too willing participant in their propagation.
Did you have a reason for this?
> as a youngster, I was quite sure there was no god.
Didn't 'we' all?
(Except the early-on helpless children who cannot defend themselves from
the BS).
Were your parents religious?
>
> I did like Dracula movies though.
(Non sequitur, but a hint of your mental 'connections'!).
> at this time, I am not atheist.
More's the pity.
Can this be an atavism?
> not because someone came along with a more convincing lie.
Curious, that you think that ANY other discussion must therefore be a
'lie'.
It shows a prejudicial or predilectional bent.
And the apparent mental set to refuse to hear or even consider any
dissent with what you presently 'believe'.
Curious indeed.
> I think I've explained a bit in other posts.
>
> if it is of interest,
> I'd be more than happy to rephrase it.
Why not?
This is the 'net, is it not?
More than just a few have un-burdened themselves here.
It could be positively cathartic.
On the 'net, no one knows your name!
I'm listening!
Dr. Fader.
Dave Haas
Puck Greenman wrote:
>
> In article <353c1f51...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>, The Dodo
> <mauriti...@hotmail.com> writes
> >On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 01:57:21 +0100, Puck Greenman <Pu...@intangiblesinc.force9.ne
> >t> wrote:
> >
> >Your eyes and ears, of course, flashing and burning respectively, as you sense
> >this upon the telly, radio, journal or textbook occasionally prepared with
> >originality and infallibly praised by the opposite of such creations.
>
> Well I wouldn't go as far as "flashing and burning", but I will
> take your point.
> >
> >Sir, I'll have you know that several complete skeletons and preserved remains
> >of the dodo exist...some, if not all, in the British Museum.
> >Extinct?!...Preposterous!
> >I am their living representative and of "I AM" who created us all.
>
> I still maintain. Extinct, But who am I to argue against such
> Devotion?
> >>
The dodo didn't have any fear or concept of humans and was thus an
easy target for abuse. Why do I see analogy here?
D. Haas
The Dodo
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 19:30:24 -0700, "Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>
>The Dodo wrote in message <353d322b...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>>On 11 Apr 1998 01:14:57 GMT, "g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Chani <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote in article
>>><6gma4n$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>
>>>> The Dodo wrote in message <352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>>>> >On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>> >
>
><snip>
>
><snip>
>>I have wrote what I believe to be true...no more, no less. You call it a
>lie
>>because you wish for it to be so. My belief is due to many of those
>reasons
>>and the consequent lessons learned from them. Atheism is simply due to
>>those reasons with very few lessons learned.
>
>You are incorrect. Where religion requires blind faith, atheism relies on
For your sake and that of the others, do I wish that I were incorrect?
You write for whom you believe to be yourself. "I AM" writes through me
and all who give Him praise. Faith is blind...unseen? I see "I AM" in all
that I observe, therefore I have faith. All you have to do is look and sense
with those "hallowed" five senses. There are more than five, and we all
possess them.
>lessons learned and taught.
No doubt...but not enough.
>Also, I, nor many other atheist I know, deny the existence of a higher
>being, your I AM; we just happen to know there does not exist such a
>creature outside of fairy tales. I base my knowledge on the fact that there
>has been thousands of gods/higher beings, at least and as many different
>religions that follow those god/higher beings; not to mention the historical
>facts gleaned from earlier societies. There is no evidence for you god, but
>if you choose to believe in your I AM, that's fine; what works for you is
>what is best for you, we atheists choose not to be deluded. What makes your
>god more believable than the other gods that came before, or since your god?
"I AM" commanded: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
"I AM" is also known by the name "ALLAH". It is unlikely that He is known by
other names in other religions as well, however, this is not impossible.
Satan and it's minions may have control of those that also speak highly of their
beliefs. These followers may or may not know of their delusion. These "gods"
were known in ancient times as Molech, Baal, Dagon, and the rest. Others in
modern times have been created as well. Naziism was a very short-lived religion
with Hitler as it's "god".
In that atheism denies and rejects "I AM", so must it be regarded as a religion
with it's "god" being Oblivion. This is one of, if not the, most cunning infestations
by Satan into the souls of men ever achieved, as old as the Creature itself.
Whether these followers know it or not, their god is actually Satan, created
along with man by "I AM." One may not worship these two creations or their
works...and live. Why on earth would someone want to call it quits after a
measly 70 to 80 years...and not even all good years at that when one can
live forever in such pleasure that one may not even conceive of it.
I know "I AM" by the very nature of His being.
Satan is known by the very nature of it's being.
Who is it to be?
>>
>>I am an enemy of atheism, not personally those affected by it. One can and
>>does fight against disease...cancer, for instance...yet by no means would
>>one ignore those affected by it...they treat them and educate others as to
>>it's severity, potential harm, and what can be done to prevent it.
>
>Atheism is not a disease, and we by no means want nor require your
>assistance. Atheists do not suffer any harm from a lack of delusion, but I
>can quote all sorts of harm your and other's beliefs have caused, and still
>cause.
It is no wonder that you do not consider it a disease, as it is a spiritual
disease. You and others are like the one who either refuses treatment or
is unaware that something is wrong...and dies.
>
>> No good
>>person wants others to die.
>
>Forcing your deluded world view on others does not make you a good person,
>just an irritant.
Madam, I do not force anything upon anyone here. You noticed this post and
chose to read and reply. If I were to place an object, such as this "scratching" post,
inside a cave, who on this tired, tattered dirtball would force you to step in and
inspect it?...unless, of course, you're a cat.
>
>>Atheism is a spiritual disease which causes
>>spiritual death. Spiritual and Physical being constitutes a whole...day
>and
>>night...positive and negative...black and white (groups of humanity teach
>>us this as well)...earth and water...fire and sky...male and female...good
>>and evil...beauty and ugliness...smooth and rough...young and old...hot
>>and cold...et cetera.
>
>Baloney!!
No thank you...I don't like bologna, although I will eat it if I must...but
only all beef bologna.
>>
>>Existence is forever back and forever forward...no beginning...no end. If
>you
>>were at the beginning, could there not have been a day before, or a day
>after
>>the end? "I AM" is the infinite universe and infuses everything within and
>>without.
>
>The beginning of what? There have been billions of beginnings. I was at
>the beginning of my life, my mother at hers, the earth was at the beginning
>of its existence and so on.
There was no beginning and there will be no end...only "I AM".
The Christ said "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the
End."
>>
>>Racism is the intolerance of another group of humanity and a spiritual
>disease.
>>It denies a part of the whole. It rejects "I AM" who created both and all.
>
>This is the biggest bunch of bull puckey! Atheism does not breed racism
I did not say that it did...another lie spread by the Creature through one
of it's perhaps unwitting followers.
>although religion often does. You are the one who is showing intolerance by
>posting this baloney here, and trying to force your world view down
>atheist's throats! What do you fear from us that you can't leave us be?
I am saddened by the hold of Satan upon the souls and minds of men
and when it uses them to deny the existence of "I AM". I must fight it...no fear.
These are two examples of spiritual disease. Racism: the hatred and denial
of man. Atheism: the hatred and denial of "I AM". The first denies the physical,
the second denies the spiritual. Physical and Spiritual constitute man. It is
impossible to tear the One asunder. Atheism is guilty of attempting this, as is
Racism.
>>
>>Atheism is the intolerance of the spiritual part of the whole and denies
>it's
>>existence and rejects "I AM" who created both and all.
>
>Your god no matter what you call it does not create anything. It is just a
>fantasy! Did you get that? A FANTASY! My mother and my father created me,
>as my husband and I created our children. This is done by that little thing
>called sex. Do you understand? Probably not because one of your basic
>tenets is to force your fantasy on others, and deny the creativity and
>wonder of the world.
One may plant a seed, but one can not make it grow. The sun and rain
created by "I AM" make it grow...the same with a man and woman...they have
a part in the creation but do not actually mold the body and cause the heart to
beat. What causes the actual growing...hmmm? What causes the heart to
beat...hmmm? I know your parents weren't reaching inside and turning a little
crank...Holy fire causes these things...you'd call it electricity...a rose is a rose
is a rose. Have you ever thought about why electricity powers everything?
Lightning = Holy fire. The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly
due to it's size. It was created by "I AM" who revealed His Holy Name to
Moses in the form of FIRE. It is UTTERLY FANTASTIC that a tiny atom can
be split and release ENORMOUS energy. The power of "I AM" can be found
in the tiniest of things.
>
>Intolerance, your name is religion!
Oblivion...thy name is Satan.
>
>Chani
>Atheist #1118; my email is c.overli @ worldnet. att. net.
>remove spaces.
>See the map of atheist's locations at
>http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
>*****************************************************
>"We dance round in a ring and suppose,
>But "I AM" sits in the middle and knows."
>
>*****************************************************
><snip>
>
I hate not "I AM", and never have...I love "I AM", and always will.
I hate no one, and never have...I love everyone, and always will.
The Dodo
Chani
The Dodo wrote in message <3536d5bf...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 19:30:24 -0700, "Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com>
wrote:
>
>>
>>The Dodo wrote in message <353d322b...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>>>On 11 Apr 1998 01:14:57 GMT, "g&g #750" <gri...@gte.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Chani <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote in article
>>>><6gma4n$4...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>>
>>>>> The Dodo wrote in message
<352fc2b0...@news.mem.bellsouth.net>...
>>>>> >On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> >
>>
>><snip>
>>
>><snip>
Oh where to begin? So much delusion, so little time!
<snip>.
>>
>>You are incorrect. Where religion requires blind faith, atheism relies on
> For your sake and that of the others, do I wish that I were
incorrect?
I ask you not to worry about my sake. You may revel in your fantasy, but
don't try to put me in it.
>You write for whom you believe to be yourself. "I AM" writes through me
>and all who give Him praise.
AH, I think I get it! There does exist a term for this in psychology.
> Faith is blind...unseen? I see "I AM" in all
>that I observe, therefore I have faith. All you have to do is look and
sense
>with those "hallowed" five senses. There are more than five, and we all
>possess them.
>>lessons learned and taught.
> No doubt...but not enough.
No, because there is always more to learn, but never enough to teach of a
god.
>>Also, I, nor many other atheist I know, deny the existence of a higher
>>being, your I AM; we just happen to know there does not exist such a
>>creature outside of fairy tales. I base my knowledge on the fact that
there
>>has been thousands of gods/higher beings, at least and as many different
>>religions that follow those god/higher beings; not to mention the
historical
>>facts gleaned from earlier societies. There is no evidence for you god,
but
>>if you choose to believe in your I AM, that's fine; what works for you is
>>what is best for you, we atheists choose not to be deluded. What makes
your
>>god more believable than the other gods that came before, or since your
god?
> "I AM" commanded: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
>"I AM" is also known by the name "ALLAH". It is unlikely that He is known
by
>other names in other religions as well, however, this is not impossible.
>
> Satan and it's minions may have control of those that also speak
highly of their
>beliefs. These followers may or may not know of their delusion.
Hmmm, speaking of delusions. I think many other religions would speak of
you as deluded.
>These "gods"
>were known in ancient times as Molech, Baal, Dagon, and the rest. Others
in
>modern times have been created as well. Naziism was a very short-lived
religion
>with Hitler as it's "god".
No, Hitler was not the god of Nazism. Hitler did believe in the Christian
god, and he imbued Nazism with much of the evil that has infested
Christianity for centuries.
>
> In that atheism denies and rejects "I AM", so must it be regarded as
a religion
>with it's "god" being Oblivion.
You are incorrect. Atheism is not a religion. and Oblivion is not a god.
Oblivion doesn't have anything to do with atheism. Oblivion is a
forgetfulness, a condition of forgetting according to Webster's dictionary.
I can not forget that which never has been.
>This is one of, if not the, most cunning infestations
>by Satan into the souls of men ever achieved, as old as the Creature
itself.
>Whether these followers know it or not, their god is actually Satan,
There is no Satan, just as there is no god. They are part and parcel of
your belief.(which I feel to be delusion)
> created
>along with man by "I AM." One may not worship these two creations or their
>works...and live.
I worship neither, and yet I live, and I shall live until I die. Then for
me there will be nothing else. I don't fear death; it is a natural part of
life.
>Why on earth would someone want to call it quits after a
>measly 70 to 80 years
Actually, I plan on living well into my hundreds, but if you want to die
after a measly 70-80 years, feel free.
>...and not even all good years at that when one can
>live forever in such pleasure that one may not even conceive of it.
I live for life, and I try and make sure my life is pleasurable and good.
You live for death in hopes of things being better there. It's not because
when you die that's it, you are no more, but life continues on.
>
>I know "I AM" by the very nature of His being.
>
>Satan is known by the very nature of it's being.
>
>Who is it to be?
Neither because neither exist.
<snip>
>>
>>Atheism is not a disease, and we by no means want nor require your
>>assistance. Atheists do not suffer any harm from a lack of delusion, but
I
>>can quote all sorts of harm your and other's beliefs have caused, and
still
>>cause.
> It is no wonder that you do not consider it a disease, as it is a
spiritual
>disease. You and others are like the one who either refuses treatment or
>is unaware that something is wrong...and dies.
We all die. I just choose to live for life instead of for death.
>
<snip>
>>
>>Forcing your deluded world view on others does not make you a good person,
>>just an irritant.
> Madam, I do not force anything upon anyone here. You noticed this
post and
>chose to read and reply.
And yet you posted to an atheist newsgroup. You posted you massive baloney
to this group, and you don't think that is forcing? I disagree. You did
not place it in a cave, you placed in a thread which I was involved in. You
put it in my way.
> If I were to place an object, such as this "scratching" post,
>inside a cave, who on this tired, tattered dirtball would force you to step
in and
>inspect it?...unless, of course, you're a cat.
>>
<snip>
>>
>>Baloney!!
> No thank you...I don't like bologna, although I will eat it if I
must...but
>only all beef bologna.
I didn't offer you balogna to eat, I would not do that because I am sure
you are not a cannibal.
<snip>
>>The beginning of what? There have been billions of beginnings. I was at
>>the beginning of my life, my mother at hers, the earth was at the
beginning
>>of its existence and so on.
>
> There was no beginning and there will be no end...only "I AM".
>The Christ said "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the
>End."
Yes there have been billions and billions of beginning. The beginning of
your religion was the beginning of your god, and the end of your religion
will be the end of your god. It matters not whether you believe that or
not; it will still happen. Christ was the Alpha and the Omega of your
belief system.
<snip>
>>This is the biggest bunch of bull puckey! Atheism does not breed racism
> I did not say that it did...another lie spread by the Creature
through one
>of it's perhaps unwitting followers.
You are right, you did not say that, but you implied it.
>>although religion often does. You are the one who is showing intolerance
by
>>posting this baloney here, and trying to force your world view down
>>atheist's throats! What do you fear from us that you can't leave us be?
> I am saddened by the hold of Satan upon the souls and minds of men
>and when it uses them to deny the existence of "I AM". I must fight
it...no fear.
Your imaginary gods have no hold over anyone but yourself and others who
believe as you do.
>
>
> These are two examples of spiritual disease. Racism: the hatred and
denial
>of man. Atheism: the hatred and denial of "I AM".
No atheism does not deny your god; atheism just attest to the fact that your
god does not exist. I don't hate your belief, but I do hate how those who
believe as you do use against others who don't.
>The first denies the physical,
>the second denies the spiritual. Physical and Spiritual constitute man.
It is
>impossible to tear the One asunder. Atheism is guilty of attempting this,
as is
>Racism.
Atheism is only guilty of not being deluded.
>
<snip>
>>
>>Your god no matter what you call it does not create anything. It is just
a
>>fantasy! Did you get that? A FANTASY! My mother and my father created
me,
>>as my husband and I created our children. This is done by that little
thing
>>called sex. Do you understand? Probably not because one of your basic
>>tenets is to force your fantasy on others, and deny the creativity and
>>wonder of the world.
> One may plant a seed, but one can not make it grow. The sun and
rain
>created by "I AM" make it grow...the same with a man and woman...they have
>a part in the creation but do not actually mold the body and cause the
heart to
>beat.
You are right there, electrical impulses do that.
>What causes the actual growing...hmmm?
Do you want the whole genetics lesson or just the shortened form?
>What causes the heart to
>beat...hmmm? I know your parents weren't reaching inside and turning a
little
>crank...Holy fire causes these things
Holy fire doesn't exist, but electricity does, as does energy.
>...you'd call it electricity...a rose is a rose
>is a rose. Have you ever thought about why electricity powers everything?
>Lightning = Holy fire
Zeus's lightning bolts are holy fire? How about Odins? This is a myth
older than your god.
>The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly
>due to it's size.
Sun is composed of gases.
>It was created by "I AM" who revealed His Holy Name to
>Moses in the form of FIRE.
Yahweh?
> It is UTTERLY FANTASTIC that a tiny atom can
>be split and release ENORMOUS energy.
Yes it is, but not for the reason you would profess. Everything has energy
and the more tightly a thing is held together the more energy it releases
when pulled apart. This is the laymen's explanation.
>The power of "I AM" can be found
>in the tiniest of things.
No the power of energy can be found in the smallest of things.
>>Intolerance, your name is religion!
> Oblivion...thy name is Satan.
<snip>
>
> I hate not "I AM", and never have...I love "I AM", and always will.
>
> I hate no one, and never have...I love everyone, and always will.
That's nice, I hate no one either (I feel hate only destroys the one who
does the hating), but neither do I love everyone. I respect the right to
live.
Chani
Atheist #1118; my email is c.overli @ worldnet. att. net.
remove spaces.
See the map of atheist's locations at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
*****************************************************
"We dance round in a ring and suppose,
Puck Greenman
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>
>
>> I just went there and copied and pasted it because
>> I knew it differred from what puck said.
>
What did Puck say, Timmy
Dave Haas
The Dodo wrote:
>
One may plant a seed, but one can not make it grow. The sun
and rain
> created by "I AM" make it grow...the same with a man and woman...they have
> a part in the creation but do not actually mold the body and cause the heart to
> beat. What causes the actual growing...hmmm? What causes the heart to
> beat...hmmm? I know your parents weren't reaching inside and turning a little
> crank...Holy fire causes these things...you'd call it electricity...a rose is a rose
> is a rose. Have you ever thought about why electricity powers everything?
> Lightning = Holy fire. The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly
> due to it's size. It was created by "I AM" who revealed His Holy Name to
> Moses in the form of FIRE. It is UTTERLY FANTASTIC that a tiny atom can
> be split and release ENORMOUS energy. The power of "I AM" can be found
> in the tiniest of things.
>
Have you ever heard of chemoautophs? Artificial light? Nuclear
fusion?
You have just set botany, cardiology, microbiology, and nuclear
physics back 1000 years.
Nice going!
D. Haas
Claude Martins
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 14:39:43 -0400, Dave Haas
<dh...@uncfsuno.campus.mcispam.net> wrote:
>The Dodo wrote:
>>
> One may plant a seed, but one can not make it grow. The sun
>and rain
>> created by "I AM" make it grow...the same with a man and woman...they have
>> a part in the creation but do not actually mold the body and cause the heart to
>> beat. What causes the actual growing...hmmm? What causes the heart to
>> beat...hmmm? I know your parents weren't reaching inside and turning a little
>> crank...Holy fire causes these things...you'd call it electricity...a rose is a rose
>> is a rose. Have you ever thought about why electricity powers everything?
>> Lightning = Holy fire. The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly
>> due to it's size. It was created by "I AM" who revealed His Holy Name to
>> Moses in the form of FIRE. It is UTTERLY FANTASTIC that a tiny atom can
>> be split and release ENORMOUS energy. The power of "I AM" can be found
>> in the tiniest of things.
>>
>
>Have you ever heard of chemoautophs? Artificial light? Nuclear
>fusion?
>
>You have just set botany, cardiology, microbiology, and nuclear
>physics back 1000 years.
>
>Nice going!
The Dodo is a troll, albeit a sometimes amusing one. Gotta be. Any
atheists want to 'fess up for this one?
--
Claude Martins, "Timberwolf", Dept of Comp Sci, York Univ, Ont, Canada
-= Visit The Wolf Lair at http://www.ariel.cs.yorku.ca/~martins =-
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent
the universe."
- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Brian Westley
mauriti...@hotmail.com (The Dodo) writes:
>On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
>>Please help
>
> Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
>"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
Ignore this idiot, he/she isn't even an atheist. The first
sentence doesn't parse, and the second is false (e.g. I believe
in radio waves, even though none of my five senses can perceive
them).
There are people who believe in gods - these are theists.
Atheists are the other ones.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Timothy Sutter
Dark Fader wrote:
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > firstly, that is your FAQ. the infidel site.
> Infidel?
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
^^^^^^^
It's the name of the site.
> To a muslim, YOU are an "infidel"! (Or any other religion, for that
> matter).
I'm anything but unfaithful. So, I think it would
be highly debatable as to my "infidel" status.
> So what do YOU mean when you use that term?
I rarely use it. but the site at which I grabbed the FAQ
was http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html,
so i just said, "the infidel" site.
> You are an infidel.
I'm not unfaithful and I'm not treacherous.
If you'd like to make some new creed from which you know
I will absent myself, and therefore call me an
infidel to your new creed, feel free.
I doubt very much that I shall ever
run around referring to myself as an infidel.
> It simply depends on where you happen to stand at any given time.
I just don't refer to myself as an infidel.
> Thus you, too, are an 'infidel'!
but I'm not unfaithful and I'm not treacherous.
> > second, as I have stated more than once,
> > I was an atheist when I was a teenager.
> > precocious youth that I was, you won't convince
> > me that I was not a "real" atheist.
> Well, what 'happened' to you?
I read a book.
> Did the 'debble get a holt of your lapel'?
no, God grabbed me by the wrist and yanked me out of line.
> Did you "get religion," in all the senselessness that that implies?
If you must know, I wasn't looking for what I found.
but when it found me, we agreed that it should stay.
> > I went to public schools,
> > had no religious education,
> > and never went to church.
> No penalty for that.
> At least you weren't brainwashed at an early age.
my mind was always fairly clean.
but, where I come from, people are required to attend
school until age 16. This didn't prevent
me from skipping class nearly everyday.
I got a 6th grade education.
I learned how to read, and cypher.
I bypassed much of the atheist indoctrination
that public schools offer.
I didn't believe in God anyway.
> > but I didn't simply "lack knowledge or belief"
> Of course. No one lives in a 'vacuum.'
It was an established fact that Clarence Darrow won the
monkey trial and proved that there was no God.
> > because I became aware of all the good "arguments"
> > that attempted to contradict the existance of God.
> And where did you obtain these 'arguments'?
I guess i didn't really have any,
I just knew that there was no God.
I didn't really care all that much.
> > and I was an all too willing participant in their propagation.
> Did you have a reason for this?
No, come to think of it, I didn't spend too much
time talking about God when i was a lad.
Mainly I just ran the streets playing pinball and
getting into trouble as a truant.
> > as a youngster, I was quite sure there was no god.
> Didn't 'we' all?
I don't know.
> (Except the early-on helpless children who cannot defend themselves from
> the BS).
> Were your parents religious?
we didn't go to church.
My mother was a Lutheran. She claimed she liked
her "pastor" as a child.
but, we never went to church.
my father likes his lab.
> > I did like Dracula movies though.
> (Non sequitur, but a hint of your mental 'connections'!).
oh really now.
> > at this time, I am not atheist.
> More's the pity.
> Can this be an atavism?
no, I've progressed.
In my opinion, most so-called atheists have
only lifted themselves above a set of
problems that I never had.
starting from a different set of problems,
I have grown into something good,
not out of something bad.
If this isn't clear, I'll make it moreso.
> > not because someone came along with a more convincing lie.
> Curious, that you think that ANY other discussion
> must therefore be a 'lie.'
actually, I'm putting words in your mouth.
you seem to be of the opinion that people
brainwash each other. I would assume
that you don't think someone must be
"convinced" of the truth, that this is
somehow self evident and therefore
no discussion is even warranted.
So, I'm telling you that I wasn't
nabbed from one primrose path
and directed down another.
presumably, I wouldn't have a utilitarian
purpose to do myself a disservice of this sort.
> It shows a prejudicial or predilectional bent.
shows nothing of the sort. I've heard you people,
and you said "we know" above so you
are part of you people,...I've heard you people
suggest that anyone who believes in God
has been taken in by a set of lies.
> And the apparent mental set to refuse to hear or even consider any
> dissent with what you presently 'believe.'
Utter nonsense, I am here.
I must admit that being called
a child and delusional is not the
dissent that is apt to sway my stance.
neither is arguing against religious
traditions that I do not hold.
sort of like trying to convince
me that jumping off a bridge will kill me.
and suspect that I am going to argue
in favor of jumping off bridges.
not exactly like, of course, but sort of.
> Curious indeed.
yes it is, you people are treacherous.
infidels is a good name for you.
I can see how you "craft" your
dainty twistologies, but I'm afraid some people can't,
and are taken aback by your subtle tactics.
luckily, not all of you people are terribly
good at employing these tactics and when you try you do so so
clumsily that it is obvious that you are doing it.
then it becomes a chore, and pointing out
to you that I can see what you
are doing simply leads nowhere.
if you need more details, ask another question.
> > I think I've explained a bit in other posts.
> > if it is of interest,
> > I'd be more than happy to rephrase it.
> Why not?
> This is the 'net, is it not?
> More than just a few have un-burdened themselves here.
I don't feel any burden.
> It could be positively cathartic.
I assure you, my belief in God is quite real
and not some blemish creme employed as a cover up.
> On the 'net, no one knows your name!
i know my name and who I am.
> I'm listening!
are you really?
> Dr. Fader.
I have my own personal Jesus.
I don't need a head pshrinker.
although some pshrinks would probably love to have me.
I think I could charge them a fee.
The Dodo
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 03:35:02 GMT, wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote:
>mauriti...@hotmail.com (The Dodo) writes:
>>On 9 Apr 1998 21:19:31 GMT, "Tariq Ilyas" <tariq...@wcom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Please help
>>
>> Atheism is the complete denial of the existence of "I AM".
>>"If it may not be perceived with the five senses, it does not exist."
>
>Ignore this idiot, he/she isn't even an atheist. The first
>sentence doesn't parse, and the second is false (e.g. I believe
>in radio waves, even though none of my five senses can perceive
>them).
Your ears may not perceive "If We Make It Through December" by Merle Haggard
playing on your radio in Podunk, Nebraska? You do not hear the proof of the existence of
radio waves and, consequently, do your eyes not perceive the written subject in some book
containing a possible reference to Marconi? Do you believe in the wind?
Dare I ask? "DARE, DARE!" - Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles"
Who's the idiot?
>
>There are people who believe in gods - these are theists.
>Atheists are the other ones.
>
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
I, too, respect science, but not to the exclusion of "I AM".
The Dodo
Stix
Al Klein posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Reminds me of a story.
>"The last man on Earth sat at a table. There was a knock on the door.
The man got up, opened the door, and looked at the knock who had affixed
itself to the door. "Yes," said the man to the knock, "what can I do for
you?" "Well," said the knock, "that depends on whether or not you have
any calamine lotion, doesn't it?"
Realizing that the knock must either be suffering from an itchy rash or
merely pretending to understand the viscosity of various household oils,
the man offered the knock a small slice of watermelon rind, and of
course, the knock accepted. "Thanks," said the knock, "and by the way,
what is it about complex carbohydrates that makes them so.....complex?"
The man was momentarily taken aback by the comment, but his mind quickly
made the correlation between the nail clippers on his desk and the
knock's emphasis on the word "about," so he shielded his eyes and quoted
a list of sedimentary deposits, which, according to the knock, was a
very satisfactory answer indeed. Pleased, the knock continued, "so, do
you have any thoughts on.........
The Dodo
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:32:56 GMT, mar...@cs.yorku.spamblock.ca (Claude Martins) wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 14:39:43 -0400, Dave Haas
><dh...@uncfsuno.campus.mcispam.net> wrote:
>
>>The Dodo wrote:
>>>
>> One may plant a seed, but one can not make it grow. The sun
>>and rain
>>> created by "I AM" make it grow...the same with a man and woman...they have
>>> a part in the creation but do not actually mold the body and cause the heart to
>>> beat. What causes the actual growing...hmmm? What causes the heart to
>>> beat...hmmm? I know your parents weren't reaching inside and turning a little
>>> crank...Holy fire causes these things...you'd call it electricity...a rose is a rose
>>> is a rose. Have you ever thought about why electricity powers everything?
>>> Lightning = Holy fire. The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly
>>> due to it's size. It was created by "I AM" who revealed His Holy Name to
>>> Moses in the form of FIRE. It is UTTERLY FANTASTIC that a tiny atom can
>>> be split and release ENORMOUS energy. The power of "I AM" can be found
>>> in the tiniest of things.
>>>
>>
>>Have you ever heard of chemoautophs? Artificial light? Nuclear
>>fusion?
These are forms of the One.
>>
>>You have just set botany, cardiology, microbiology, and nuclear
>>physics back 1000 years.
>>
>>Nice going!
A fire is a fire is a fire...you're on fire, Dave.
>
>The Dodo is a troll, albeit a sometimes amusing one. Gotta be. Any
>atheists want to 'fess up for this one?
Now, now, sir...believing in that which does not exist? Have you lost
what precious remains of your faculties you've left? There are no trolls...it's just
little ol' me...
The Dodo
Claude Martins
And not even that anymore. You lasted a lot longer than most of the
others, I'll give you that much.
>plonk<
Douglas & Jennie Jackson
In our last episode of *[alt.atheism]*, Tariq Ilyas wrote:
> Please help
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. That is all that it is
and all that it'll ever be... Being an atheist doesn't not presume an
automatic following of Satan. Satan, like Krishna, Odin, God (of the
Judeo-Christian mythos) and Hera, all hold equal validity and reality
to an atheist. That is to say none at all.
Non Serviam,
Doug (Atheist #274)
--
_.-----------I don't need God or religion. I have an Amiga.-----------.
_ // I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed |
\X/ or numbered! My life is my own. - No.6 to No.2, "The Prisoner" |
`------------Amiga Users - Someone you trust is one of us.--------------'
g&g #750
> The Dodo wrote:
> The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly due to it's size.
This one has to be worthy of consideration for Fundie Quote of the Month!
Magnolia
> Al Klein posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >Reminds me of a story.
> >"The last man on Earth sat at a table. There was a knock on the door.
The man walked to the door and opened it. A beautiful woman stood on
the other side.
"Okay buddy," she said, "My turn's been overdue for four days now,
you've had two hours to recover from the last chick and I'm tired of
waiting. So get those shorts off and let's GO handsome!"
The man clutched his groin and fell to the floor. He curled into a
foetal position and began quietly whimpering.
"Hmmmph!" said the woman, "Typical male! No staying power."
:)
Magnolia
Therion Ware
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:12:16 -0400, Magnolia
<magn...@rogers.wave.on.ca> decided to say, in alt.atheism, using 23
valuable lines of text:
"It's not that" said the man, "If you had a case of the clap like I
had, you'd be wimpering too".
[d]
you christians debate the atheists...
and vice versa.
and claims that you're the one who's right.
ofcourse you can't find the right answer...
because one debates another according to the corrupted doctrines...
YOU WILL NEVER EVER GET THE ANSWER.
TRUST ME.
for atheits:
go debate another religion...
maybe you'll find the answers you need.
*a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
Gregory Gyetko
[d] wrote:
> you christians debate the atheists...
They *annoy* the atheists, so few of them are capable of anything approaching
the level of 'debate'.
> and vice versa.
> and claims that you're the one who's right.
Atheists claim that there is no evidence for a deity. The Christians have
not posted any. You tell me whom you think is right.
> ofcourse you can't find the right answer...
> because one debates another according to the corrupted doctrines...
Doctrines? Yes, the Xtians argue using their doctrines as premises ...
without bothering to realize that their doctrine is unsupported.
> YOU WILL NEVER EVER GET THE ANSWER.
> TRUST ME.
Why should I? You seem both illiterate and incoherent. Hardly a model for
me trust.
> for atheits:
> go debate another religion...
> maybe you'll find the answers you need.
Answers to what?
> *a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
What is your original language, anyway? Or are you just reaching puberty?
Greg.
--
alt.atheism Atheist #911
"I'd worship Satan, but I'm going to hell anyway,
so why waste my time?"
EAC homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9916/
whateverman
Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>
> [d] wrote:
[...]
> > for atheits:
> > go debate another religion...
> > maybe you'll find the answers you need.
>
> Answers to what?
>
> > *a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
[snip]
Although I don't think he said this well, I think [d] had a good point:
I'd like to see the atheists here tackle a non-catholic relgion with as
much fervor.
Fine: that aint your "job", and not all atheists "tackle" christianity,
etc etc etc
...but I wonder at the extent of the vitriol directed at christianity -
it may be deserved, seeing that it's the one denomination that seems to
rail against you (atheists) more than any other.
But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
[I think this was [d]'s original intent in pointing out]
"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and
parade those discriminations before others."
Taoist philosopher Chuang Tzu
whateverman at erols.com
Timothy Sutter
Pucky,
>>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> I just went there and copied and pasted it because
>> I knew it differred from what puck said.
> What did Puck say, Timmy
puck admitted he was rather mindless and had few ideas
and was not a very talented logician but that he posted here
because it gave him a sense of belonging.
--
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307/
Puck Greenman
In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.98041...@isnet.itb.ac.id>,
"[d]" <do...@parallel.universe.org> writes
>
> YOU WILL NEVER EVER GET THE ANSWER.
What answer?
> TRUST ME.
Now that is a joke.
>
> for atheits:
> go debate another religion...
> maybe you'll find the answers you need.
Get some thing straight fuck features,
This is an atheist NG, and we are atheists.
You fundies are the the dipshits who come in here and start
these debates; We,OTOH, have, from the goodness of our hearts,
offered :
Advice and information;
But you didn't want the truth.
We read your posts again, and tried offerimg threats, ridicule,
and insults, as is required in:
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness' sake:
But that doesn't satisfy you either.
So just what fuck do you stupid braindead, arse licking,
bullshit spouting morons fucking want?
>
> *a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
Yea junior, from what we have seen, simple describes you well.
Yang Hu
g&g #750 wrote:
>
> > The Dodo wrote:
>
> > The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly due to it's size.
>
doesn't taht make him a sun worshipeer?
Yang
#28
Stix
[d] posted the following to alt.atheism:
> you christians debate the atheists...
> and vice versa.
> and claims that you're the one who's right.
Atheists *are* right.
> ofcourse you can't find the right answer...
Sorry, chump, already found it.
> because one debates another according to the corrupted doctrines...
Err, which "corrupted doctrines" are they?
> YOU WILL NEVER EVER GET THE ANSWER.
ALREADY GOT IT.
> TRUST ME.
NOT A CHANCE.
> for atheits:
> go debate another religion...
Piss off, dipshit.
> maybe you'll find the answers you need.
Are you deaf as well as stupid?
> *a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
"Simple" is the operative word.......
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
AutismUK
In article <3533E4...@tacks.stupidity>, whateverman
<whate...@tacks.stupidity> writes:
>But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
>other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
Because they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make meaningless
assertions etc etc.
Christopher A. Lee
Why did the self-appointed moderator of this newsgroup who calls
himself whateverman ask this? He's been told this several times
already.
The Dodo
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 05:01:12 -0700, Yang Hu <"yanghu"@uci.edu.(Yang Hu)> wrote:
>g&g #750 wrote:
>>
>> > The Dodo wrote:
>>
>> > The sun is composed of Holy fire and burns very slowly due to it's size.
>>
>> This one has to be worthy of consideration for Fundie Quote of the Month!
>
>
>doesn't taht make him a sun worshipeer?
Replace "u" with "o", Yangster...young 'un.
>
>Yang
>#28
whateverman
AutismUK wrote:
>
> In article <3533E4...@tacks.stupidity>, whateverman
> <whate...@tacks.stupidity> writes:
>
> >But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
> >other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
> >Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
>
> Because they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make meaningless
> assertions etc etc.
Ok
Granted, it seems like atheism (as it's described by this newsgroup) is
besieged (sp?) by christianity. Heck, *I've* been the target of some of
the more radical Christians - I can certainly understand why there would
be a "focus" on catholicism by the atheists here.
But the question is *why* atheists here don't spend more time shooting
down other religions... For all the logic they claim to use (and in a
majority of cases, I would agree with), their refutations of RELIGION
are based on refutations of christianity - which is not necessarily
logical
[for those concerned with PC: not all atheists do this; but, a majority
of those who feel the need to place a single post in alt.atheism about
the evils/stupidity of religion refer ONLY to christianity]
I think there are several reasons for this, among which are:
1) atheists (here) simply aren't interested in pursuing this line of
thought beyond the readily available evidence from Christianity
2) like you said, AutismUK, atheists are attacked repeatedly by
christians - rather than representatives of other religions
Regardless, I'm sincerely interested in *why* theism (here) is equated
with christianity, rather than the other way around...
whateverman
Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> Oh, come on, how many times has this been explained?
>
> The reason that the Christians keep getting bitten, is that they keep
> pokeing their faith where it doesn't belong, here in alt.atheism. We don't
> get Jews, followers of Mohammed, and Baha'i guys PREACHING here, do we? No,
> it's by and large Christians that can't seem to resist flocking to a.a. to
> INSULT us, and since for the most part their arguments are non-existant or
> repetitive, we can only assume that that's the ONLY reason they're here.
>
> It doesn't help that the other religions can't even come close to the
> depths of self-righteousness and arrogance that most of the christians who
> post here wallow in.
I'm not gonna deny this. I've experienced it mahself...
The question is (like I posted elsewhere in this thread) why is the word
theism used in place of the word Christian?
Pioneer
In article <353530...@tacks.stupidity>, whate...@tacks.stupidity wrote:
Hello again...
> The question is (like I posted elsewhere in this thread) why is the word
> theism used in place of the word Christian?
Oh?
Can you point to specific posts where people have consistently typed
"theist" when they actually meant "christian" and we can be sure it wasn't
simply an mistake made in the rush to post? Aren't you assuming quite a
bit to say that an atheist "really means to say christian" when you see
the word "theist?"
If not, how can we be sure that this phenomenon isn't simply in your
imagination?
When *I* mean christian, I say christian. When I mean theist, I say theist.
And I always use theist/theism unless I am specifically addressing
christianity. When someone presents an idea, and I am sure we are talking
about christianity, then I use that term - otherwise I stick to the
general "theism" because I don't want to make unwarranted assumptions.
What's more, I use the term "theism" when I think that my comments apply
to theism in general, even if the conversation has mostly focused on a
specific religion. That can happen often. Thus, it may *seem* that I
should just mean "christianity" when I am in fact drawing broader
conclusions about god-belief.
I suspect that both things happen quite often with atheists - and that
that is what you may be seeing.
--
Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance
Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/2850/ (Home Page)
http://www.geocities.com/~shiwpa (SHiWPA Home Page)
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
Al Klein
>> Al Klein posted the following to alt.atheism:
>> >Reminds me of a story.
>> >"The last man on Earth sat at a table. There was a knock on the door.
> The man walked to the door and opened it. A beautiful woman stood on
>the other side.
Almost exactly as written years ago, so far. (My apologies to the
author, but I can't remember who wrote it.)
> "Okay buddy," she said, "My turn's been overdue for four days now,
>you've had two hours to recover from the last chick and I'm tired of
>waiting. So get those shorts off and let's GO handsome!"
Nope. Wrong story. :)
---
Al
aklein at villagenet dot com
Beth Wise
On 15-Apr-98 17:11:34, whateverman said in alt.atheism:
> AutismUK wrote:
>>
>> In article <3533E4...@tacks.stupidity>, whateverman
>> <whate...@tacks.stupidity> writes:
>>
>> >But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
>> >other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>> >Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
>>
>> Because they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make meaningless
>> assertions etc etc.
> Ok
> Granted, it seems like atheism (as it's described by this newsgroup) is
> besieged (sp?) by christianity. Heck, *I've* been the target of some of
> the more radical Christians - I can certainly understand why there would
> be a "focus" on catholicism by the atheists here.
"catholicism?" You wouldn't be using the word "catholicism" when you really
mean "christianity," now would you? Wouldn't that mean that you're
essentially doing the same thing you accuse atheists of when you claim they
use the word "theist" when they mean "christian?" Quite frankly, I see no
focus on catholicism, and in fact it looks to me like most of the bleaters
who harrass us in alt.atheism are protestant. Us kettles. You pot.
[snip remainder which, naturally, includes the very theism=christianity
accusation]
--
Beth Wise, alt.atheist #859 | "Your scientists were so
aka Ink on #Amiga, Undernet | preoccupied with whether or not
inky(at)csrlink(dot)net | they could that they didn't stop
http://inky.home.ml.org/ | to think if they should."
Amiga 4000/040/25MHz/18MB | - "Ian Malcolm," Jurassic Park
Booster
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:34:30 -0400, whateverman
<whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote:
>Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>>
>> [d] wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > for atheits:
>> > go debate another religion...
>> > maybe you'll find the answers you need.
>>
>> Answers to what?
>>
>> > *a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
>
>[snip]
>
>Although I don't think he said this well, I think [d] had a good point:
>I'd like to see the atheists here tackle a non-catholic relgion with as
>much fervor.
>
>Fine: that aint your "job", and not all atheists "tackle" christianity,
>etc etc etc
>
>...but I wonder at the extent of the vitriol directed at christianity -
>it may be deserved, seeing that it's the one denomination that seems to
>rail against you (atheists) more than any other.
>
>But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
>other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
When a group(or coalition) of muslims or hindus start trying to turn
the country I live in to a theocracy, then I'll start chastizing them
too :)
>[I think this was [d]'s original intent in pointing out]
>
>
>
>"The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and
>parade those discriminations before others."
>Taoist philosopher Chuang Tzu
>
>whateverman at erols.com
Shawn Allen Atheist #383
Boo...@dynasty.net.net <--spam foiler
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
_____|_____|_____|DEFEND_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|____THE____|_____|_____|___
_____|_____|_____|_WALL|_____|_____|_____|
__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|____
Christopher A. Lee
In article <353530...@tacks.stupidity> whate...@tacks.stupidity writes:
>AutismUK wrote:
>>
>> In article <3533E4...@tacks.stupidity>, whateverman
>> <whate...@tacks.stupidity> writes:
>>
>> >other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>> >Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
>>
>> assertions etc etc.
Which he has been told in previous threads but seems to have
forgotten.
>Ok
>Granted, it seems like atheism (as it's described by this newsgroup) is
>besieged (sp?) by christianity. Heck, *I've* been the target of some of
>the more radical Christians - I can certainly understand why there would
>be a "focus" on catholicism by the atheists here.
>
>But the question is *why* atheists here don't spend more time shooting
>down other religions... For all the logic they claim to use (and in a
"Because they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make meaningless
assertions etc etc."
I don't have Jews, Moslems, Sikhs etc coming looking for me
and telling me to believe their religion, telling me that
I can't have morals because I don't believe as they do, my
future sons can't be scouts unless they lie about believing
because they won't have the values of honesty etc that are
required for scouts, that objective understanding of how
works shouldn't be taught because it contradicts their
religion, that everybody should observe their religion
etc etc.
Christianity is an evangelising religion - which means
that too many Christians don't live-and-let live.
We don't go looking for Christians to attack Christianity.
We respond to Christians who can't leave us alone. Who
try to force Christianity on the rest iof us.
>majority of cases, I would agree with), their refutations of RELIGION
>are based on refutations of christianity - which is not necessarily
>logical
>
>[for those concerned with PC: not all atheists do this; but, a majority
>of those who feel the need to place a single post in alt.atheism about
>the evils/stupidity of religion refer ONLY to christianity]
Because that is the most evil of the ones we see every day.
>I think there are several reasons for this, among which are:
>
>1) atheists (here) simply aren't interested in pursuing this line of
>thought beyond the readily available evidence from Christianity
>2) like you said, AutismUK, atheists are attacked repeatedly by
>christians - rather than representatives of other religions
It does happen - and they get exactly the same kind of
treatment meted out to therude/nasty/etc Christians.
>Regardless, I'm sincerely interested in *why* theism (here) is equated
>with christianity, rather than the other way around...
Because 99.9% of the theists who post here are some kind of
Christian. When was the last time you saw in-your-face
rudeness in the name of his religion from a Hindu, a Sikh
or a Jew? There is currently a spamming Moslem who ignored
responses so we've contacted his ISP.
But then you know all this because you've been told it several
times.
"I view myself as a sort of moderator in the atheist
newsgroups" - whateverman
Booster
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:13:04 -0400, whateverman
<whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote:
>Denis Loubet wrote:
>>
>> Oh, come on, how many times has this been explained?
>>
>> The reason that the Christians keep getting bitten, is that they keep
>> pokeing their faith where it doesn't belong, here in alt.atheism. We don't
>> get Jews, followers of Mohammed, and Baha'i guys PREACHING here, do we? No,
>> it's by and large Christians that can't seem to resist flocking to a.a. to
>> INSULT us, and since for the most part their arguments are non-existant or
>> repetitive, we can only assume that that's the ONLY reason they're here.
>>
>> It doesn't help that the other religions can't even come close to the
>> depths of self-righteousness and arrogance that most of the christians who
>> post here wallow in.
>
>I'm not gonna deny this. I've experienced it mahself...
>The question is (like I posted elsewhere in this thread) why is the word
>theism used in place of the word Christian?
Why are you so hung up on this? If the person in question IS a
christian, then either word applies.
Booster
Timothy "It's MINE and I'll play with it if I want to!" Sutter
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>I admitted I was rather mindless and had few ideas
>and was not a very talented logician but than I posted here
>because it gave me a sense of belonging.
Yes, and you really need to get a hobby or something. This trolling
for attention thing of yours is just really pathetic.
Mark Richardson
whateverman wrote:
> Ok
> Granted, it seems like atheism (as it's described by this newsgroup) is
> besieged (sp?) by christianity. Heck, *I've* been the target of some of
> the more radical Christians - I can certainly understand why there would
> be a "focus" on catholicism by the atheists here.
>
> But the question is *why* atheists here don't spend more time shooting
> down other religions... For all the logic they claim to use (and in a
> are based on refutations of christianity - which is not necessarily
> logical
>
Some atheists have heard all the arguments 10000 times over and are
bored.
They come here more for the political question of freedom *of* religion
and freedom *from* religion.
There are the social aspects of being a minority that is villified by
the news media and entertainment industries.
How do you deal with family rejection?
How do you bring up your children?
etc.
Some come here just to know they are not the only sane person in an
insane world!
Your intrests are philosophical in nature but many atheists have
practical concerns that they want to discuss. OR joke about. OR let off
a little steam.
> [for those concerned with PC: not all atheists do this; but, a majority
> of those who feel the need to place a single post in alt.atheism about
> the evils/stupidity of religion refer ONLY to christianity]
>
>
> 1) atheists (here) simply aren't interested in pursuing this line of
> thought beyond the readily available evidence from Christianity
> 2) like you said, AutismUK, atheists are attacked repeatedly by
> christians - rather than representatives of other religions
>
> with christianity, rather than the other way around...
>
(and it is usually a casual slip up - not a "get whateverman campaign"
!)
It happens that newsgroup postings are often rattled off at great speed
with a need to blow of steam.
People are not perfect.
Also, like I said above "atheists" are NOT solely concerned about
debunking religions.
(Like gays are not always obsessed with sex 24 hours a day!)
Some atheists have no interest in debunking religion at all. The
question is simply irellavent.
I can understand you being peaved, but you have to see the politics of
being a minority in a sea of belivers produces a certain polarity of
views.
You just get trampled in the rush occasionaly. 8-)
(collatoral damage - as the millitary say)
Mark.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
____________________________________________________________
whateverman
Mark Richardson wrote:
>
> whateverman wrote:
[...]
> > Regardless, I'm sincerely interested in *why* theism (here) is equated
> > with christianity, rather than the other way around...
> >
> Not all atheists do this.
> (and it is usually a casual slip up - not a "get whateverman campaign"
> !)
I would certainly agree.
But it happens often, whether by new or regular a.a. enthusiasts.
>
> It happens that newsgroup postings are often rattled off at great speed
> with a need to blow of steam.
> People are not perfect.
[...]
> I can understand you being peaved, but you have to see the politics of
> being a minority in a sea of belivers produces a certain polarity of
> views.
Oh, I think I've understood that for a long time. And been attacked for
even mentioning the occasional disparity.
I'm not trying to hold atheists here to a standard of inhuman perfection
(ie. no logical errors, etc), but, just as atheists like to point out
the imperfections in theist logic, I am merely reciprocating.
> You just get trampled in the rush occasionaly. 8-)
> (collatoral damage - as the millitary say)
Tell me about it...
whateverman at erols.com
whateverman
Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> whateverman <whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote in article
> <353530...@tacks.stupidity>...
[...]
> > Regardless, I'm sincerely interested in *why* theism (here) is equated
> > with christianity, rather than the other way around...
>
> I would go so far as to make the admission that perhaps some atheists carry
> their annoyance of the Christian fundamentalists over to the concept of
> theism in general. For some atheists, Christian fundamentalism may be the
> only exposure to thesim-in-general that they have, and so find it difficult
> to separate the two.
THAT'S the only thing I was looking for.
whateverman@erols dot com
whateverman
Pioneer wrote:
[...]
> Can you point to specific posts where people have consistently typed
> "theist" when they actually meant "christian" and we can be sure it wasn't
> simply an mistake made in the rush to post? Aren't you assuming quite a
> bit to say that an atheist "really means to say christian" when you see
> the word "theist?"
This thread was the result of a post by "suzana" (can't remember her
last name) who used the term "theists" and bible in the same sentence.
Something along the lines of
> >> The problem is in that theist cant go beyond religion and god.They do not
> >> possess capacity to do that.Sinse the only truth for them is that of
> >> "Bible" and god.
Now, someone *did* point out that the term bible was put in quotes -
which might imply that she didn't intend this statement represented all
theists.
I reacted - as this kind of mistake *is* made frequently, tho maybe not
in this case specifically.
>
> If not, how can we be sure that this phenomenon isn't simply in your
> imagination?
I *know* you don't want me to jump on every instance of it. Your vague
challenge almost calls for me to do this - and I certanly will spend the
time doing it, if you want...
But I'd rather not - it's annoying, and promotes little to no dialogue
(nor is it ineteresting). All I can say is that you should "trust me"
(heh)
... that it's NOT in my imagination.
As it's been mentioned, I've kinda beaten this to death. The beating
ends here.
whateverman at erols.com
Stix
whateverman posted the following to alt.atheism:
>The question is (like I posted elsewhere in this thread) why is the word
>theism used in place of the word Christian?
<groan>
It's VERY simple. "Theist" is a generic term for any idiot who still
believes in magic space pixies irrespective of which particular
perversion of space pixieism they follow.
"Christian" is a specific term for a schmuck from any branch of the
saviour on a stick cult.
Savvy?
Stix
whateverman treads ever closer to the killfile:
>> whate...@epitomizes.stupidity writes:
>> >But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
>> >other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>> >Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
>> Because they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make meaningless
>> assertions etc etc.
>Ok
>Granted, it seems like atheism (as it's described by this newsgroup) is
>besieged (sp?) by christianity.
Ok, so you understand *why* we don't spend as much time shooting down
other religious perversions.
> Heck, *I've* been the target of some of
>the more radical Christians - I can certainly understand why there would
>be a "focus" on catholicism by the atheists here.
Kewl. Question answered, problem solved, right?
>But the question is *why* atheists here don't spend more time shooting
>down other religions...
Err, because generally they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make
meaningless assertions etc etc.
> For all the logic they claim to use (and in a
>majority of cases, I would agree with), their refutations of RELIGION
>are based on refutations of christianity
One more time perhaps?
Because other religions generally don't endlessly spam our mailboxes,
make meaningless assertions etc etc.
> - which is not necessarily logical
It's not logical to focus on the bleating imbeciles from the particular
religious perversion who make the most noise about the truth of their
fantasy etc?
You don't seem to be too tightly wrapped, boy.
>[for those concerned with PC: not all atheists do this; but, a majority
>of those who feel the need to place a single post in alt.atheism about
>the evils/stupidity of religion refer ONLY to christianity]
<sigh>
BECAUSE IT'S MOSTLY CHRISTIAN IMBECILES WITH WHOM THEY'VE HAD CONTACT.
D'ja get it *that* time?
>I think there are several reasons for this, among which are:
Oh fuck.
>1) atheists (here) simply aren't interested in pursuing this line of
>thought beyond the readily available evidence from Christianity
Actually, I've also shitcanned a few allah-monkeys, one Talulan, a
couple of new age dreamers, and one particular smurf-chanter.
>2) like you said, AutismUK, atheists are attacked repeatedly by
>christians - rather than representatives of other religions
Hooray!
He gets it! He *finally* gets it!
(and you have the temerity to say *you* attack stupidity??)
>Regardless, I'm sincerely interested in *why* theism (here) is equated
>with christianity, rather than the other way around...
It's *not*.
Theism = generic term for *all* space pixie zealots.
Christian = selective term for space pixie zealots who also believe the
drivel spewed by the saviour on a stick cult.
Don Antropos
Hi whateverman,
I won't speak for other atheists, only for myself...
whateverman <whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote:
>AutismUK wrote:
>>
>> In article <3533E4...@tacks.stupidity>, whateverman
>> <whate...@tacks.stupidity> writes:
>>
>> >But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
>> >other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>> >Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
>>
>> Because they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make meaningless
>> assertions etc etc.
>
>Ok
>Granted, it seems like atheism (as it's described by this newsgroup) is
>besieged (sp?) by christianity. Heck, *I've* been the target of some of
>the more radical Christians - I can certainly understand why there would
>be a "focus" on catholicism by the atheists here.
I did my bit of xian hunting and the reason for this was simply that
they were available with their loads of crap. If muslims had been here
at the time, I would have 'shot' them 'down' as well and I would have
done it with all religious-zealots had they thrown their gibberish at
me.
Why don't I do that anymore? I found out how to ignore them. ;) Made
my life a whole lot easier.
>
>But the question is *why* atheists here don't spend more time shooting
>down other religions... For all the logic they claim to use (and in a
>majority of cases, I would agree with), their refutations of RELIGION
>are based on refutations of christianity - which is not necessarily
>logical
To me, shooting down religions is a complete waste of time. They will
fall on their own eventually. However, I do oppose to their influence
in everyday life, especially in politics. And since I live in a
christian nation, it's mostly the christians that I oppose to.
>
>[for those concerned with PC: not all atheists do this; but, a majority
>of those who feel the need to place a single post in alt.atheism about
>the evils/stupidity of religion refer ONLY to christianity]
I think this is because those people are confronted mainly with
christian ideas. Most usenet users live in the west.
>
>I think there are several reasons for this, among which are:
>
>1) atheists (here) simply aren't interested in pursuing this line of
>thought beyond the readily available evidence from Christianity
>2) like you said, AutismUK, atheists are attacked repeatedly by
>christians - rather than representatives of other religions
To me it is useless to prove atheism in an atheism newsgroup. And I'm
too lazy to prove it elsewhere. In everyday life I show my atheist
conviction regularly, but only if I find it necessary to talk some
sense in the people I meet. I wouldn't really preach, because I do
believe in the freedom to chose your own convictions.
>
>Regardless, I'm sincerely interested in *why* theism (here) is equated
>with christianity, rather than the other way around...
Again, I think it's mainly because it's the religion that most
atheists here meet on a regular basis. Also I think it's a very
obnoxious religion, but so is Islamic belief. At least more obnoxious
than other religions.
Don
Todd Adamson
whateverman says...
> I think there are several reasons for this, among which are:
>
> 1) atheists (here) simply aren't interested in pursuing this line of
> thought beyond the readily available evidence from Christianity
> 2) like you said, AutismUK, atheists are attacked repeatedly by
> christians - rather than representatives of other religions
>
> with christianity, rather than the other way around...
>
As far as I can tell, your the only one equating theism with
Christianity. Perhaps you weren't around when Jahnu was wrecking havoc
in this newsgroup.
--
Todd Adamson #1114 - SPAMGOO_tadamson@SPAMGOO_netins.net
(Remove spam goo to respond)
Got a hard line from the Great Dictator
Cause I didn't confess to Father Masturbator
- Foetus
Paul Andrew King
In article <353530...@tacks.stupidity>,
whateverman <whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote:
>I think there are several reasons for this, among which are:
>
>1) atheists (here) simply aren't interested in pursuing this line of
>thought beyond the readily available evidence from Christianity
I don't think that that is an important part of the answer (although it may
apply to some individuals).
>2) like you said, AutismUK, atheists are attacked repeatedly by
>christians - rather than representatives of other religions
>
>Regardless, I'm sincerely interested in *why* theism (here) is equated
>with christianity, rather than the other way around...
>
I would think that the most important part is that most of the people
posting to this group cme from countries where Christianity is the dominant
religion, and has been for centuries. Further many of us are
ex-christians. Therefore it is hardly surprising that we are simply more
familiar with Christianity than other religions - and even have tendancy to
assume Christian ideas when talking of religion (although I, at least, try
to avoid this).
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
Al Klein
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:13:04 -0400, whateverman
<whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote:
>Denis Loubet wrote:
>> The reason that the Christians keep getting bitten, is that they keep
>> pokeing their faith where it doesn't belong, here in alt.atheism. We don't
>> get Jews, followers of Mohammed, and Baha'i guys PREACHING here, do we? No,
>> it's by and large Christians that can't seem to resist flocking to a.a. to
>> INSULT us, and since for the most part their arguments are non-existant or
>> repetitive, we can only assume that that's the ONLY reason they're here.
>> It doesn't help that the other religions can't even come close to the
>> depths of self-righteousness and arrogance that most of the christians who
>> post here wallow in.
>I'm not gonna deny this. I've experienced it mahself...
>The question is (like I posted elsewhere in this thread) why is the word
>theism used in place of the word Christian?
For one thing, we have constant posts of the Koran in here, too.
Al Klein
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:11:34 -0400, whateverman
<whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote:
>But the question is *why* atheists here don't spend more time shooting
>down other religions
Because alt.atheism isn't a place where atheists spend time "shooting
down . . . religions". It's a place where atheists meet to discuss
issues of interest to atheists. Like atheistic bumper stickers. Like
the EAC convention. Like how to answer "How can you not believe in
god?"
AND where atheists shoot down posts they disagree with, the vast
majority of which have been posted by one form of Christian or
another.
Count de Count
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> In article <199804150858...@ladder03.news.aol.com> auti...@aol.com (AutismUK) writes:
> >In article <3533E4...@tacks.stupidity>, whateverman
> ><whate...@tacks.stupidity> writes:
> >
> >>But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
> >>other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
> >>Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
> >
> >Because they don't endlessly spam our mailboxes, make meaningless
> >assertions etc etc.
>
> Why did the self-appointed moderator of this newsgroup who calls
> himself whateverman ask this? He's been told this several times
> already.
Because whateverman seems to like trying to stir up hornets nests. He is well
aware, in any case, that a number of fairly savage attacks were launched
against a muslim who started spewing his allah-babble in here, and that the
aforementioned muslim fared no better than do the xtians.
The Ryddler (Atheist #1115)
-------------------------------------------------------
They use religion like a drunken man uses a lamp-post:
For support, not illumination.
-------------------------------------------------------
Puck Greenman
In article <Pine.SOL.3.92.980417193228.20874B-100000@u2>, Count de Count
<mg...@u2.newcastle.edu.au> writes
>He is well
>aware, in any case, that a number of fairly savage attacks were launched
>against a muslim who started spewing his allah-babble in here, and that the
>aforementioned muslim fared no better than do the xtians.
And as I recall it, a certain smurf worshiper got him
self toasted a time or two, before he finaly got the idea and
fu.. sorry, left.
-- ################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here, #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
################################################
G L 'Bonz' Newman
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:34:30 -0400, whateverman
<whate...@tacks.stupidity> wrote:
>Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>>
>> [d] wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > for atheits:
>> > go debate another religion...
>> > maybe you'll find the answers you need.
>>
>> Answers to what?
>>
>> > *a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
>
>[snip]
>
>Although I don't think he said this well, I think [d] had a good point:
>I'd like to see the atheists here tackle a non-catholic relgion with as
>much fervor.
>
>Fine: that aint your "job", and not all atheists "tackle" christianity,
>etc etc etc
>
>...but I wonder at the extent of the vitriol directed at christianity -
>it may be deserved, seeing that it's the one denomination that seems to
>rail against you (atheists) more than any other.
>
>But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
>other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
Jews don't spam us with pleas to stop eating cheeseburgers because
THEY can't. Have you seen many posts that start EAT THAT HAM
SANDWICH AND BURN IN HELL?
I don't care if someone worships small appliances if he does it away
from me and doesn't expect ME to kneel in awe before the Holy
Toaster Oven.
I don't mind Amish, for instance. I have Amish neighbors. They think
god wants them to wear ugly clothes and drive horses, so they do.
That's fine by me.
-- Bonz
PLEASE revove THE OBVIOUS from my address to reply by Email.
Jim
In article <3533E4...@tacks.stupidity>, whate...@tacks.stupidity says...
>
>Gregory Gyetko wrote:
>>
>> [d] wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> > for atheits:
>> > go debate another religion...
>> > maybe you'll find the answers you need.
>>
>> Answers to what?
>>
>> > *a man who's watching over this newsgroup, and make a simple conclusion*
>
>[snip]
>
>Although I don't think he said this well, I think [d] had a good point:
>I'd like to see the atheists here tackle a non-catholic relgion with as
>much fervor.
>
>Fine: that aint your "job", and not all atheists "tackle" christianity,
>etc etc etc
>
>...but I wonder at the extent of the vitriol directed at christianity -
>it may be deserved, seeing that it's the one denomination that seems to
>rail against you (atheists) more than any other.
>
>But if atheists "simply" lack a belief in God, why don't you chastize
>other God-believing religions? I rarely see anything directed at
>Judaism, or Mohammedism (sp?), or Baha'ism, or whatever...
>
>
I have found very little "chastizing" of Christianity. I do see, and
sometimes participate in, the "chatisement" of those that make
slanderous and hate-mongering attacks on my beliefs.
Your statement that "... (Christianity) is the one denomination (sic)
that seems to rail against you.." pretty well sums it up.