Introduction to Aatheism
Electro
Aatheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of atheists.
This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice,
or from an inherent inability to believe atheistic teachings which seem
literally illogical. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of
atheistic teachings.
Some aatheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in atheists: they actively
believe that particular atheists, or all atheists, do not exist. Lacking belief
in atheists is often referred to as the "weak aatheist" position. Believing
that atheists do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong aatheism."
Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'atheist':
Whether they are 'aatheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're
unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered claims of atheism, it's not a
very important debate...
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak
aatheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the
existence of atheists. "Strong atheism" is a positive belief that atheists do
not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all aatheists are
"strong aatheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and
"weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
Some aatheists believe in the non-existence of all atheists; others limit their
aatheism to specific atheists, such as sentient atheists, rather than making
flat-out denials.
"But isn't disbelieving in atheists the same thing as believing atheists do not
exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it
to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing
that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.
----
More to come. :)
Electro
Theism - (noun) - the ill effect of habitual excess in tea drinking.
[from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary]
Tim Kelley
[snip]
> Electro
>
> Theism - (noun) - the ill effect of habitual excess in tea drinking.
> [from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary]
You came up with a mildly funny joke a long time ago. This is
the sort of thing that might occur to one when bored, as when
commuting to work. Of course it is your life's achievment.
Please continue to develop and expand on these ideas.
Electro
>From: Tim Kelley kel...@mindspring.com
>Date: Tue, 24 August 1999 07:40 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37C284CA...@mindspring.com>
Um, okay.
Red Celt
wrote:
>"What is aatheism?"
<snip>
The product of a deranged mind; the end result of a marriage of
boredom and insufficient social skills.
>More to come. :)
Ya reckon? :)
<PLONK>
Red Celt
#883
BAAWA
Kalle Helenius
Electro <elect...@aol.come2gether> wrote in message
news:19990824051651...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
> "What is aatheism?"
I just gotta!
<PLŠNK>
Fucking idiot.
--
Damnant quod non intelligunt.
Aut disce aut discede.
kalle.h...@907.aldata.fi , EAC Comfy chair and fluffy pillows
administrator.
remove a.a# to reply...BAAWA!
Jessica M. Wolfman
>"What is aatheism?"
Why do you think we care about your beliefs? If you don't like atheists, you are
free to leave this newsgroup.
>Electro
>
>Theism - (noun) - the ill effect of habitual excess in tea drinking.
>[from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary]
>
>
Jessica Wolfman
sa #1002
"No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions."
-- Charles P. Steinmetz
Replace nospam.com with boo <dot> net to reply via email.
Mark Richardson
Wolfman) wrote:
>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro ) wrote:
>
>>"What is aatheism?"
Who cares?
>
>Why do you think we care about your beliefs? If you don't like atheists, you are
>free to leave this newsgroup.
>
Well said Jessica!
>>Aatheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of atheists.
Why invent new words when "terminal stupidity" is a perfectly
acceptable phrase to use in its place?
Seriously Electro, thinking just isn't your "thing".
That is not such a big deal.
You can still be a good person.
Why not take up art or sports instead?
You might still be good at something.
Best of luck finding out what that is.
Cheers, Mark.
Michael Stanley
wrote:
>"What is aatheism?"
At first I was all set to tear into this and expose the lies and
stupidity for what they are.
Then I thought, No! That'd be too easy and its already obvious.
I'll just let Electro's excuse for logic stand for itself. It makes
him look more stupid than I ever could.
>Aatheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of atheists.
But I do have to hilite the above sentence as extrodinarily humorous.
:) One *HAS* to wonder what kind of drugs he's on.
Michael Stanley
Athiest at large
LP
wrote:
>"What is aatheism?"
>
>Aatheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of atheists.
>This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice,
>or from an inherent inability to believe atheistic teachings which seem
>literally illogical. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of
>atheistic teachings.
There is no such thing as atheistic teaching. If an atheist teaches
anything linked to their atheistic beliefs, it might only be critical
thinking and modern scientific method. I have not read a single post
by any atheist that implied that they believed in teaching anything
other than this. If you have examples that indicate that this not so,
let's see them.
whirl_pool
#1439
Dr Sinister
<37c30bc6...@news.comm-plus.net>:
>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>>"What is aatheism?"
>
>Why do you think we care about your beliefs?
Well, you certainly are preoccupied with the beliefs of "christers".
Maybe _you_ should leave this group.
Atheists make their bread and butter from the beliefs of others. An
atheist likes to think of himself as someone "who lacks the stupid
beliefs of others" whatever that means.
Feel free to claim otherwise. Intellectual integrity, the ability to
represent the point of view you claim to represent, isn't something I
expect from an atheist anyway.
--
If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Dr Sinister
<37c37696...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>>"What is aatheism?"
>
>At first I was all set to tear into this and expose the lies and
>stupidity for what they are.
>
>Then I thought, No! That'd be too easy and its already obvious.
Translation: you thought about it, realized you were screwed and had no
possible counterargument nor defense. So you quickly formulated some ad
homs and straw men, and you are now introducing us to them.
[snip crap]
Dr Sinister
<37c2877a...@news.supernews.com>:
>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>>"What is aatheism?"
>>
>>Aatheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
>>atheists. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
>>deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe atheistic
>>teachings which seem literally illogical. It is not a lack of belief
>>born out of simple ignorance of atheistic teachings.
>
> There is no such thing as atheistic teaching.
This is just a lie. If what you say is true, then maff91 does not exist.
Who do you think you are kidding? Some of us are not as abysmally stupid
or gullible as atheists. Anyone can do a search for "atheism" with
AltaVista to prove you are lying. If you have to lie, chose your topics
well. Lie about stuff we can't verify one way or another. Like your dick
size or lack-of-beliefs.
>If an atheist teaches
>anything linked to their atheistic beliefs, it might only be critical
>thinking and modern scientific method.
Ok:
Maff91: http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=509675220
>It[Big Bang Matter] always existed. Occam's razor precludes any other
>explanation.
Terry <terry...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<7pvlvg$q5r$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>:
>You cannot find a reason why the IPU does not exist.
Skeptic <nos...@all.all> wrote in <4RAw3.411$SQ3....@news.uswest.net>:
Only negatively stated hypotheses are falsifiable.
You call that science. I call it bullshit.
>I have not read a single post
>by any atheist that implied that they believed in teaching anything
>other than this.
You are either lying or you are totally blind.
>If you have examples that indicate that this not so,
>let's see them.
AltaVista search for "atheism". Do it. Then we'll talk.
Jessica M. Wolfman
>Jessica M. Wolfman <wolf...@nospam.com> wrote in
><37c30bc6...@news.comm-plus.net>:
>
>>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"What is aatheism?"
>>
>>Why do you think we care about your beliefs?
>
>Well, you certainly are preoccupied with the beliefs of "christers".
No. I get annoyed with people of any religion who spam and troll this newsgroup.
>Maybe _you_ should leave this group.
Why?
>Atheists make their bread and butter from the beliefs of others. An
>atheist likes to think of himself as someone "who lacks the stupid
>beliefs of others" whatever that means.
And this is our newsgroup. We are entitled to have our own beliefs on our own
newsgroups. IIRC, there are thousands, tens of thousands, of non-atheistic
newsgroups, and only five that are atheistic. And yet theists feel the need to
come and harass us in our own newsgroup.
>Feel free to claim otherwise. Intellectual integrity, the ability to
>represent the point of view you claim to represent, isn't something I
>expect from an atheist anyway.
You are free to leave, too, if you don't like us. You won't, of course, because
you are a weak little bully who craves the attentions of others, and the only
way you know how to get any attention is to harass others.
Are you proud of yourself for doing that?
>--
>If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
>belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Jessica Wolfman
Javacrucian
Dr Sinister wrote:
>
> Michael Stanley <JMic...@Zworldnet.att.netZ> wrote in
> <37c37696...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
>
> >On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
> >wrote:
> >
> >>"What is aatheism?"
> >
> >At first I was all set to tear into this and expose the lies and
> >stupidity for what they are.
> >
> >Then I thought, No! That'd be too easy and its already obvious.
>
> Translation: you thought about it, realized you were screwed and had no
> possible counterargument nor defense. So you quickly formulated some ad
> homs and straw men, and you are now introducing us to them.
And apparently he is using you as a medium. "Ad homs and straw men" is
your specialty, and your limit, insofar as posts. I'd point to your
hypocrisy but you seem to revel in it. . .
Peace,
Javacrucian
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand; ignorance and
prejudice and fear walk hand in hand" -- RUSH
LP
wrote:
>LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
><37c2877a...@news.supernews.com>:
>
>>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"What is aatheism?"
>>>
Critical thinking is what is being taught in every example I have
found, NOT atheism.
Atheism was just the RESULT of being taught that way of thinking.
If........
Teaching = critical thinking skills
then.....
Result = abandonment of ancient myths
It is all very simple.
whirl_pool
#1439
Dr Sinister
<37c4cfee...@news.supernews.com>:
[snip]
>Critical thinking is what is being taught in every example I have
>found, NOT atheism.
You have a problem with atheism, it seems.
> Atheism was just the RESULT of being taught that way of thinking.
Understanding Pythagoras's rule is a side-effect of studying geometry.
Why don't we just dispense with the word "geometry" and use "Pythagoras's
Rule" instead? Because it's both stupid and intellectually fraudulent to
do so.
If atheism is just a consequence of critical thinking, then why don't we
call this alt.critical-thinking? Why dont you call yourself a
(criticalthinker)ist rather than an a(IPU)ist?
LP
wrote:
>LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
><37c4cfee...@news.supernews.com>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Critical thinking is what is being taught in every example I have
>>found, NOT atheism.
>
>You have a problem with atheism, it seems.
>
>> Atheism was just the RESULT of being taught that way of thinking.
>
>Understanding Pythagoras's rule is a side-effect of studying geometry.
>Why don't we just dispense with the word "geometry" and use "Pythagoras's
>Rule" instead? Because it's both stupid and intellectually fraudulent to
>do so.
>
No, this is not the same. You need to know a lot more than
Pythagoras's Rule to be fluent in geometry. ON the other hand, anyone
who exercises critical thinking skills will become an atheist.
Believing in illogical ancient myths is a direct result of thinking
uncritically.
Teaching geometry will make anyone who is responsive, "good in
geometry."
Teaching critical thinking will make anyone who is responsive "a
non-believer in imaginary beings"
>If atheism is just a consequence of critical thinking, then why don't we
>call this alt.critical-thinking?
Because the name of this newsgroup is alt.atheism, if you called it
alt.critical-thinking then people wouldn't be able to find it in the
newsgroup list.
Critical thinking leads to many results of which atheism is just one.
whirl_pool
#1439
David G Dick
Dr Sinister wrote in message <8E2DD69B...@news.globalserve.net>...
>
>This is just a lie. If what you say is true, then maff91 does not exist.
I always thought he reminded me of a 'bot.
<snip examples of "atheist teachings">
Well well. Apparently it is ATHEISM that teaches about the big bang, and
not ASTRONOMY. We should be teaching atheism in high school then! Wait
till Brian Pickrell hears about this!
--
David G Dick
"A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."
Dr Sinister
<19990827014240...@ng-cn1.aol.com>:
[snip]
>What atheist? Sometimes your weak aatheism annoys me, Dr. Sinister. ;-P
I should use the correct term: "one who applies the string-symbol atheist
to himself".
>As a strong aatheist, I generally don't make distinctions between weaker
>and stronger forms of things that do not exist, except that a "weak
>atheist" would not be able to demonstrate any distinction between his
>opinion and irreligious people, and a "strong atheist" would not be able
>to demonstrate any distinction between his sentience and that of a non
>-sentient object. Both "weak" and "strong" do not exist.
I'm not so sure. Theoretically, a bottle of floor-wax cannot be a strong
atheist, only a weak one. Then again, a strong atheist with respect to a
pantheist or panentheist denies the existence of everything.
>In the future, could you reiterate your aatheism by not referring to the
>nice people here as "atheists?"
In my particular take on things, the string-symbol "atheist" is a highly
derogatory term, synonymous with 'dumb fuck' or 'total shit-for-brains.'
You could use my neologism, athiot. Now, I am not an aathiotist. That is
because I firmly believe in the existence of idiots who call themselves
atheists.
>If not for the sake of consistent
>aatheism, then at least to avoid the ramifications of actualizing a
>strong atheist. I generally am disturbed by people who visualize
>themselves as having the intelligence of a rock and then try their
>damnest to convince you that is the limit of their intelligence.
Heh.
>It's
>hard to escape the great lengths they go through to persuade you to call
>them idiots. I know that you have fallen to this many times. Please
>don't call them atheists. It encourages them.
You have to play along with the delusions of mental patients sometimes.
Expecially when none of the 1500+ free-roaming psychos are wearing
straitjackets.
[snip]
Electro
>Date: Fri, 27 August 1999 01:43 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37c62376...@news.supernews.com>
>
>On 27 Aug 1999 05:14:52 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>>Date: Thu, 26 August 1999 04:06 AM EDT
>>>Message-id: <37c8ef05...@news.supernews.com>
>>
>>Please tell me you're not stupid enough to think only atheists think
>>critically.
>>
>
>As stated in the last line of my post, "Critical thinking leads to
>many results of which atheism is just one."
Oh, then it follows that critical thinking can lead to an alternate idea which
I hold, which is that you have no fucking clue what critical thinking is.
Evidence below:
>It is sort of like saying, if you walk in a straight line, you will
>eventually get out of the forest. Sure, there are some who have just
>started, and haven't made it out of the forest yet, but with
>persistence they will eventually get there. There are no other
>alternatives. Christians however, are content to forever walk in
>circles.
The premise being that you believe all non-Christians are atheists, and hence
critical thinkers.
You really -are- stupid. My apologies for assuming otherwise.
Dr Sinister
<37c8ef05...@news.supernews.com>:
[snip]
>Teaching geometry will make anyone who is responsive, "good in
>geometry."
>Teaching critical thinking will make anyone who is responsive "a
>non-believer in imaginary beings"
Most theists make that claim. I doubt you'll ever run into a theist who
prefaces his theology with "god is an imaginary being that..."
Michael Stanley
wrote:
>Jessica M. Wolfman <wolf...@nospam.com> wrote in
><37c30bc6...@news.comm-plus.net>:
>
>>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"What is aatheism?"
>>
>>Why do you think we care about your beliefs?
>
>Well, you certainly are preoccupied with the beliefs of "christers".
>Maybe _you_ should leave this group.
>
>Atheists make their bread and butter from the beliefs of others. An
>atheist likes to think of himself as someone "who lacks the stupid
>beliefs of others" whatever that means.
Its sad that you think your beliefs are stupid, but you are icorrect
in your beliefs about atheists. Contrary to what your hate inspired
words imply, atheists only prefer to not jump to conclusions.
We just want *some* reasonable evidence before we believe in
a god. And for that some people hate us? I think that's sad.
>Feel free to claim otherwise. Intellectual integrity, the ability to
>represent the point of view you claim to represent, isn't something I
>expect from an atheist anyway.
Yes, it appears as though you have closed your mind to it
already. With that type of approach, I doubt you will ever
find it either. I think that's also sad.
>If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
>belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Still don't believe in hair? :) Now that's funny.
Michael Stanley
wrote:
>Michael Stanley <JMic...@Zworldnet.att.netZ> wrote in
><37c37696...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
>
>>On 24 Aug 1999 09:16:51 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"What is aatheism?"
>>
>>At first I was all set to tear into this and expose the lies and
>>stupidity for what they are.
>>
>>Then I thought, No! That'd be too easy and its already obvious.
>
>Translation: you thought about it, realized you were screwed and had no
>possible counterargument nor defense. So you quickly formulated some ad
>homs and straw men, and you are now introducing us to them.
Oh I'm found out by Electro. I guess there's nothing to do now but go
back to the super secret illuminati society of
atheists-out-to-get-everyone and plot our next approach to defeat the
great Electro.
You know Electro... You need to get a life. :)
Electro
>Message-id: <37c7369f...@news.supernews.com>
>
>On 27 Aug 1999 06:43:58 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>>From: whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com (LP)
>>>Date: Fri, 27 August 1999 01:43 AM EDT
>>>Message-id: <37c62376...@news.supernews.com>
>>>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>>>>From: whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com (LP)
>>>>>Date: Thu, 26 August 1999 04:06 AM EDT
>>>>>Message-id: <37c8ef05...@news.supernews.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>><37c4cfee...@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Critical thinking is what is being taught in every example I have
>>>>>>>found, NOT atheism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have a problem with atheism, it seems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atheism was just the RESULT of being taught that way of thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Understanding Pythagoras's rule is a side-effect of studying geometry.
>>>>>>Why don't we just dispense with the word "geometry" and use
>"Pythagoras's
>>>>>>Rule" instead? Because it's both stupid and intellectually fraudulent to
>>>>>>do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, this is not the same. You need to know a lot more than
>>>>>Pythagoras's Rule to be fluent in geometry. ON the other hand, anyone
>>>>>who exercises critical thinking skills will become an atheist.
>>>>>Believing in illogical ancient myths is a direct result of thinking
>>>>>uncritically.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>geometry."
>>>>>Teaching critical thinking will make anyone who is responsive "a
>>>>>non-believer in imaginary beings"
>>>>>
>the forest, some christians persist in walking in circles.
>
>Please continue to demonstrate this for us.
You are commiting several fallacies which would be obvious to anyone versed in
logic (critical thinking). Here they are:
1. "Critical thinking creates atheists," conversely "theists aren't critical
thinkers"
This is a belief that you accept without evidence. (a fallacy of prejudice)
I am a theist (a panentheist, to be more precise) and through critical thinking
I have exposed your premise "Critical thinking leads to atheism" as a unsound
premise and a prejudice against critically thinking theists, by virtue of the
fact that I am evidence of a theist who thinks critically because I have
identified your use of a prejudice as a premise. This alone makes the statement
"Whirlpool is a person who has no fucking clue what critical thinking is" a
tautology.
Let's move on.
2. Your prejudicial singling out of Christians as the opposite of atheists
further demonstrates your lack of critical thinking in your failure to address
the easily established fact that not all theists are Christians, as you
suggested by the premises you have made against Christians by baselessly
accusing them of being non-critical thinkers and also by baselessly accusing me
of being a Christian, presumably because I disagree with your statements about
critical thinking in general. This is also a fallacy of prejudice derived from
whole cloth and not anything related to reality or evidential. Again, we would
be remiss in our search for your fabled critical thinking if we didn't point
out that thus far we are fruitless.
Moving on...
3. Your prejudices manifest themselves once again with your baselessly asking
me to "demonstrate" my alleged lack of critical thinking, the insinuation being
that I am a Christian, and that said Christianity is the cause or operant force
behind alleged lack of critical thinking.
Having identified 2 fallacious premises in your reasoning already should
suffice in demonstrating I do not lack critical thinking skills. But to
continue, I am not a Christian, I am a Zen Buddhist. Your prejudicial
assumptions do not result in a predicate that even remotely describes me. This
is because, as I said before,
critical thinking leads me to believe you don't have a fucking clue what
critical thinking is.
Syllogized:
1. If Whirlpool has a fucking clue what critical thinking is, s/he wouldn't use
fallacious premises as axioms.
2. Whirlpool has used nothing but fallacious premises as axioms.
3. Ergo, Whirlpool has no fucking clue what critical thinking is.
Feel free to demonstrate your "critical thinking" at anytime, dumbass.
Dr Sinister
[snip]
>Contrary to what your hate inspired
>words imply, atheists only prefer to not jump to conclusions.
Michael, you're simply a liar. Here's the evidence:
1. It is rational to deny existence _on the basis_ of argumentum ad
ignorantiam. I call that jumping to a conclusion:
In article <tiXu3.11143$x04.6...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>
"Kent Symanzik" <ke...@nospam.vnp.com> writes:
Why is it rational to deny the existence of anything due to lack of
evidence?
Elf Sternberg that it is rational:
Because you end up believing in everything, including the
swampland, the brigde, and the magic beans I have for sale.
2. There is no god & assorted other conclusions. And if you have no
evidence, I call it 'jumping' to a conclusion:
Don Kresch <rot13....@xeylax.pbz.getridof.com> wrote in
<37c79181...@news5.usenetserver.com>:
> There is no god to understand.
Date: Tue Aug 24 00:59:07 EDT 1999
There's no such thing as a soul.
Date: Tue Aug 24 19:06:27 EDT 1999
It's utterly invalid. Agnosticism cannot stand on its own.
Date: Wed Aug 25 16:24:37 EDT 1999
There is no god.
Don Kresch <rot13....@xeylax.pbz.getridof.com> wrote in
<37bc18d8...@news.usenetserver.com>:
> There's no such thing as the supernatural. All claimed
>supernatural phenomenae can be attributed to natural causes.
Don Kresch <rot13....@xeylax.pbz.getridof.com> wrote in
<37c90b4f...@news5.usenetserver.com>:
> The universe is eternal.
> There is no god.
There are hundreds more quotes like these. Each one is evidence that you
are either lying or just plain stupid.
>We just want *some* reasonable evidence before we believe in
>a god.
"We" don't want that, because the "We" you babble on about have already
made up their minds. "You" are lying about what the "We" is all about.
>And for that some people hate us? I think that's sad.
I don't hate you, Michael. I just think you are a liar and an idiot.
--
LP
wrote:
>LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
><37c8ef05...@news.supernews.com>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Teaching geometry will make anyone who is responsive, "good in
>>geometry."
>>Teaching critical thinking will make anyone who is responsive "a
>>non-believer in imaginary beings"
>
>Most theists make that claim. I doubt you'll ever run into a theist who
>prefaces his theology with "god is an imaginary being that..."
>
In reality they ARE imaginary. the christians just imagine they are
real.
Once former christians realize they are imaginary, then we begin
referring to them as such.
whirl_pool
#1439
LP
wrote:
>>Even when there are people all around them, finding their way out of
>>the forest, some christians persist in walking in circles.
>>
>>Please continue to demonstrate this for us.
>
>You are commiting several fallacies which would be obvious to anyone versed in
>logic (critical thinking). Here they are:
>
>1. "Critical thinking creates atheists," conversely "theists aren't critical
>thinkers"
>This is a belief that you accept without evidence. (a fallacy of prejudice)
>
These are to completely independent observations. They are each
facts in their own right. The veracity of these facts has been shown
many times in other posts in this newsgroup.
>I am a theist (a panentheist, to be more precise) and through critical thinking
>I have exposed your premise "Critical thinking leads to atheism" as a unsound
>premise and a prejudice against critically thinking theists, by virtue of the
>fact that I am evidence of a theist who thinks critically because I have
>identified your use of a prejudice as a premise.
Absolutely untrue
If, as you say, you are a critical thinker, and if as you say, you
are not yet an atheist, it does not make my statement "critical
thinking leads to atheism", untrue. If you are still unsure, look up
the word "leads".
It may take a little more time and effort on your part, but I
believe you will eventually find your way into the light. Since you
have made it to pantheism, you only have a few more steps. (As you
don't give in to the temptation to abandon critical thinking)
>Let's move on.
>
>2. Your prejudicial singling out of Christians as the opposite of atheists
>further demonstrates your lack of critical thinking in your failure to address
>the easily established fact that not all theists are Christians,
For the purpose my post, it is irrelevant whether there are other
kinds of believers in imaginary beings. My chosen topic of discussion
was Christians vs Atheist.
> as you
>suggested by the premises you have made against Christians by baselessly
>accusing them of being non-critical thinkers and also by baselessly accusing me
>of being a Christian, presumably because I disagree with your statements about
>critical thinking in general. This is also a fallacy of prejudice ...blah..blah...
It is far from baseless.
1)
"made against Christians by baselessly accusing them of being
non-critical thinker"
Give one example of how a critical thinking person can conclude that
the Christian God exists.
2)
"baselessly accusing me of being a Christian"
Since the overwhelming majority of theists posting in this newsgroup
are christians, it is hardly a baseless assumption that you were a
christian also.
>
>Moving on...
>
>3. Your prejudices manifest themselves once again with your baselessly asking
>me to "demonstrate" my alleged lack of critical thinking, the insinuation being
>that I am a Christian, and that said Christianity is the cause or operant force
>behind alleged lack of critical thinking.
>
Ok, my mistake, christians aren't the only ones that tend to "walk in
circles".
>Having identified 2 fallacious premises in your reasoning already should
>suffice in demonstrating I do not lack critical thinking skills. But to
>continue, I am not a Christian, I am a Zen Buddhist.
I am also a Zen Buddhist.
The non-existant one has assured me, he does not exist.
(+1)+(-1)=0
whirl_pool
#1439
Dr Sinister
<37c88720...@news.supernews.com>:
[snip]
>Absolutely untrue
> If, as you say, you are a critical thinker, and if as you say, you
>are not yet an atheist, it does not make my statement "critical
>thinking leads to atheism", untrue. If you are still unsure, look up
>the word "leads".
The statement "I lack belief in X", no matter what X is, is a statement
that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to anything.
OK, so now how does critical thinking lead up to a statement that has no
information content nor relevance to anything?
> It may take a little more time and effort on your part, but I
>believe you will eventually find your way into the light. Since you
>have made it to pantheism, you only have a few more steps.
You are implying that a state of zero relevance, "lack of belief in X",
is somehow preferable to pantheism/panentheism.
Can you explain what the benefits are?
[snip]
>For the purpose my post, it is irrelevant whether there are other
>kinds of believers in imaginary beings. My chosen topic of discussion
>was Christians vs Atheist.
That is your topic, because your particular actualization of "atheism" is
as anti-christianism.
[snip]
Ace Ventura
>
> [snip]
>
> >Absolutely untrue
> > If, as you say, you are a critical thinker, and if as you say, you
> >are not yet an atheist, it does not make my statement "critical
> >thinking leads to atheism", untrue. If you are still unsure, look up
> >the word "leads".
>
> The statement "I lack belief in X", no matter what X is, is a statement
> that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to anything.
Why is that, because you say so? If we were about to enter what was
reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
and perhaps to the person I made it to. It would contain information
about me, and while you personally might not care less, it wouldn't
diminish it's relevance to those who might find the information useful
or interesting. You might wish to think your statement through some more.
> OK, so now how does critical thinking lead up to a statement that has no
> information content nor relevance to anything?
You're basing the rest of your argument on a fallacious assumption. Your
claim that a statement about lack of belief having no information or
relevance is an opinion, and only an opinion. Someone might find the
statement has relevance to _them_, and relevance is relative. Relevance:
"Pertinence to the matter at hand."
Electro
>Message-id: <37c88720...@news.supernews.com>
>
>On 27 Aug 1999 10:19:43 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Even when there are people all around them, finding their way out of
>>>the forest, some christians persist in walking in circles.
>>>
>>>Please continue to demonstrate this for us.
>>
>>You are commiting several fallacies which would be obvious to anyone versed
>in
>>logic (critical thinking). Here they are:
>>
>>1. "Critical thinking creates atheists," conversely "theists aren't critical
>>thinkers"
>>This is a belief that you accept without evidence. (a fallacy of prejudice)
>>
> These are to completely independent observations. They are each
>facts in their own right. The veracity of these facts has been shown
>many times in other posts in this newsgroup.
No, the popularity of this prejudice has been shown many times in other posts
in this newsgroups. You are now employing an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
>>I am a theist (a panentheist, to be more precise) and through critical
>thinking
>>I have exposed your premise "Critical thinking leads to atheism" as a
>unsound
>>premise and a prejudice against critically thinking theists, by virtue of
>the
>>fact that I am evidence of a theist who thinks critically because I have
>>identified your use of a prejudice as a premise.
>
>
>Absolutely untrue
Because you say so, I'm sure.
> If, as you say, you are a critical thinker, and if as you say, you
>are not yet an atheist, it does not make my statement "critical
>thinking leads to atheism", untrue. If you are still unsure, look up
>the word "leads".
If we understand "atheism" and "theism" to be objective opposites, then it
holds that you are saying that theists aren't "critical thinkers" and should I,
personally, think "more critically," I would become an atheist. Let me assure
you that it IS critical thinking that prevents me from declaring myself an
atheist. Critical thinking has removed many superstitious elements from my
theism, but it does not, and can not make me an atheist. As evidenced by the
gathering of people here who declare themselves atheists, yet do not
demonstrate a shred of critical thinking, such as yourself.
> It may take a little more time and effort on your part, but I
>believe you will eventually find your way into the light.
ROFL!
Atheism is the light? How more superstitious can you possibly get without
admitting you've religionized your prejudices?
Since you
>have made it to pantheism, you only have a few more steps.
That's panentheism. Pantheism is something else entirely.
(As you
>don't give in to the temptation to abandon critical thinking)
I have never been tempted to be stupid. Hence, I am not an atheist.
>>Let's move on.
>>
>>2. Your prejudicial singling out of Christians as the opposite of atheists
>>further demonstrates your lack of critical thinking in your failure to
>address
>>the easily established fact that not all theists are Christians,
>
>For the purpose my post, it is irrelevant whether there are other
>kinds of believers in imaginary beings.
I don't think you'll find anyone that will define "theist" as "one who believes
in imaginary beings," or "God" as "an imaginary being."
The reason why you profess this prejudicial fallacy is a result of "critical
thinking" is the same reason the axiom "Whirlpool has no fucking clue what
critical thinking is" holds true.
My chosen topic of discussion
>was Christians vs Atheist.
No, your chosen tactic of dealing with non-atheists was to present Christians
as the strawman representative of all theists. This tactic was not driven by
critical thinking, but rather stupidity.
>> as you
>>suggested by the premises you have made against Christians by baselessly
>>accusing them of being non-critical thinkers and also by baselessly accusing
>me
>>of being a Christian, presumably because I disagree with your statements
>about
>>critical thinking in general. This is also a fallacy of prejudice
>...blah..blah...
Blah? How enlighteningly unintellectual of you.
>It is far from baseless.
Because you say so, I'm sure.
>1)
>"made against Christians by baselessly accusing them of being
>non-critical thinker"
>Give one example of how a critical thinking person can conclude that
>the Christian God exists.
Not necessary, go ask a Christian. But stay on topic here. Give one example of
how your atheism has anything to do with critical thinking. Please.
>"baselessly accusing me of being a Christian"
>Since the overwhelming majority of theists posting in this newsgroup
>are christians, it is hardly a baseless assumption that you were a
>christian also.
I suppose that half-baked answer will suffice for now, but it does demonstrate
how "atheists" would prefer to attack a religion rather than a theism. (Because
they can't attack a theism) That I were a Christian or not is irrelevant, since
i was defending critical thinking and theism, not a particular religion.
There is a simpler explanation for your illogical faux pas. The old brainwashed
noodle in your head just doesn't know how to respond to new data.
>
>>
>>Moving on...
>>
>>3. Your prejudices manifest themselves once again with your baselessly
>asking
>>me to "demonstrate" my alleged lack of critical thinking, the insinuation
>being
>>that I am a Christian, and that said Christianity is the cause or operant
>force
>>behind alleged lack of critical thinking.
>Ok, my mistake, christians aren't the only ones that tend to "walk in
>circles".
How ironic, that this statement argues back, in a circle, to the original
prejudice against Christians.
>>Having identified 2 fallacious premises in your reasoning already should
>>suffice in demonstrating I do not lack critical thinking skills. But to
>>continue, I am not a Christian, I am a Zen Buddhist.
>
>I am also a Zen Buddhist.
So?
>The non-existant one has assured me, he does not exist.
>
>(+1)+(-1)=0
Critical thinking has assured me that you are not a critical thinker.
Electro
>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 06:49 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37C7BEBC...@goober.net>
>
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>>
>> LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
>> <37c88720...@news.supernews.com>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Absolutely untrue
>> >are not yet an atheist, it does not make my statement "critical
>> >thinking leads to atheism", untrue. If you are still unsure, look up
>> >the word "leads".
>>
>> that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to anything.
>
>Why is that, because you say so? If we were about to enter what was
>reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
>my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
>and perhaps to the person I made it to. It would contain information
>about me, and while you personally might not care less, it wouldn't
>diminish it's relevance to those who might find the information useful
>or interesting. You might wish to think your statement through some more.
I think Dr. Sinister would agree with me that the statement "I lack belief in
ghosts" holds no relevant epistemological value as an informative statement. It
is a phenomenological language shift that avoids making the empirical claims
"There is no such thing as ghosts" or "I believe ghosts do not exist."
This is the same ultimately meaningless phenomenological language shift
employed by those who mystically engender a difference between "weak" and
"strong" atheism, the "weak" commit themselves to untestable claims (which put
their commitments in the EXACT same category as religious commitments) and the
"strong" commit themselves to empirical claims they can't defend (which makes
them irrational) Since the "line" between "weak" and "strong" fails to survive
any analytical assault, we can reasonably be assured that a claim of atheism is
merely a claim of commitment to irrationality.
Now, back to your "ghost" analogy. what exactly do you mean when you say "I
lack belief in ghosts?" Are you a strong "a-ghostist" or a weak "a-ghostist?"
Note that the existence of ghosts is not the issue here, but rather what drives
a person to say they do (or do not). To do this, one must support his
conclusion with more than his premise (a.k.a. not argue in a circle) by filling
in the essence of their statement with testable claims. This gives a statement
relevance value. The test of the claim itself determines its truth value.
Now the question is, "Can you make a testable claim consistent with atheism?"
If you answer "yes" them please provide the world with your testable claim so
that it may be tested, and prepare for the rush of accolades from the
philosophical community for being the first person to ever inject rationality
into atheism.
If you answer "no" then you understand why Dr. Sinister and I find claims of
atheism meaningless, because of the claim's irrational, untestable basis.
LP
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>From: whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com (LP)
>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 03:47 AM EDT
>
>Critical thinking has assured me that you are not a critical thinker.
>
Provide one shred of evidence that these invisible being(s) you speak
of exist, and you will have made your point.
whirl_pool
#1439
Michael Stanley
wrote:
>Michael Stanley <JMic...@Zworldnet.att.netZ> wrote in
><37c64ce5...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Contrary to what your hate inspired
>>words imply, atheists only prefer to not jump to conclusions.
>
>Michael, you're simply a liar. Here's the evidence:
>
>1. It is rational to deny existence _on the basis_ of argumentum ad
>ignorantiam. I call that jumping to a conclusion:
<numerous quotes clipped>
>There are hundreds more quotes like these. Each one is evidence that you
>are either lying or just plain stupid.
Wrong. The only thing that all atheists can be said to share is a
lack of belief in a god. Some atheists may claim a belief that god
does in fact not exist. Others may claim that atheism leads to
logical thinking. But that is all moot. None of that is required
to be an atheist.
The only factor common to all atheists under the sun is that each
one lacks a belief in any god. The reason we lack a belief in
a god is either that we never considered the matter or that we
haven't found sufficient reasonable evidence.
I'll certainly admit that there are probably some atheists who have
never considered the matter just as there are theists who haven't
considered the matter just as there are atheists who have carefully
considered the matter just as there are theists who have.
In either case its clear that the atheist has not jumped to the
god conclusion.
Now, are you going to resort to more insults? Or actually try to
hold a discussion?
>>We just want *some* reasonable evidence before we believe in
>>a god.
>
>"We" don't want that, because the "We" you babble on about have already
>made up their minds. "You" are lying about what the "We" is all about.
Not at all. I pointed out that of the set of all atheists, some may
hold additional beliefs. The same is true of theists. All theists
must believe in one or more god's. Some add to that and also
believe in only one specific god for example (christians).
You are trying to take one subset of atheists and argue that
all atheists have those qualities. That doesn't work.
>>And for that some people hate us? I think that's sad.
>
>I don't hate you, Michael. I just think you are a liar and an idiot.
That kind of an attitude without even knowing what I'm about
qualifies as hate in my book.
>If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
>belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Michael Stanley
Athiest at large
Michael Stanley
<granp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
After much trimming of HTML code the following readable text emerged:
>I'm peering at your sig there MS, and for some reason; WANTED comes
>to mind; LOL; Was that your intent ?
Actually it was to some extent. It was a joke about how some theists
would like to stamp out all atheists, but here I am running about
free. I try to only use that sig on this newsgroup.
Electro
>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 08:12 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37c87a17...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
You mispelled bigot.
Electro
>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 03:41 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37c93b69...@news.supernews.com>
>
>On 28 Aug 1999 15:16:10 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 03:47 AM EDT
>>
>>Critical thinking has assured me that you are not a critical thinker.
>>
>
>Provide one shred of evidence that these invisible being(s) you speak
>of exist, and you will have made your point.
Since you are a Zen Buddhist, I needn't explain the relationships between your
khandas and samsara, do I?
That said, I don't recall speaking of invisible beings, so I needn't address
you strawman, or answer the complex question it comprises.
Nor will I allow you to attempt to shift the topic from your as yet unsupported
claim that atheism is a product of critical thinking, and theists need only
more critical thinking to become atheists. I will also continue to point out
each fallacy and prejudice you employ to dodge examination and inquiry into why
you made such an asinine statement in the first place. Ultimately, you have two
options. You could retract the statement, and go learn at least as much about
critical thinking and logical methods as you pretend you know already, or you
could produce support for your statement and refute me to silence. It's that
easy.
LP
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>From: whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com (LP)
>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 03:41 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <37c93b69...@news.supernews.com>
>>
>>On 28 Aug 1999 15:16:10 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>>>From: whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com (LP)
>>>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 03:47 AM EDT
>>>
>>>Critical thinking has assured me that you are not a critical thinker.
>>>
>>
>>Provide one shred of evidence that these invisible being(s) you speak
>>of exist, and you will have made your point.
>
>Since you are a Zen Buddhist, I needn't explain the relationships between your
>khandas and samsara, do I?
I do not agree with the use of the word "your" in the question above.
Khandas and Samsara are characteristics of existence, as am I.
I do not believe there is any other relationship between these two
characteristics.
>
>That said, I don't recall speaking of invisible beings, so I needn't address
>you strawman, or answer the complex question it comprises.
>
>Nor will I allow you to attempt to shift the topic from your as yet unsupported
>claim that atheism is a product of critical thinking, and theists need only
>more critical thinking to become atheists. I will also continue to point out
>each fallacy and prejudice you employ to dodge examination and inquiry into why
>you made such an asinine statement in the first place. Ultimately, you have two
>options. You could retract the statement, and go learn at least as much about
>critical thinking and logical methods as you pretend you know already, or you
>could produce support for your statement and refute me to silence. It's that
>easy.
>
I have not shifted from the topic, I have shifted to the very crux of
the topic.
You say you are not speaking of invisible being(s).
If it, or they, are not invisible, it should be easy for you to
prove it, or they, exist.
It seems that you believe something exists that has ALL the
characteristics of something that really doesn't exist.
Very convenient for your argument, but very illogical.
After reading your responses, I am even more convinced than before
that theist are the way they are because they lack critical thinking
skills.
Instead of continuing with your flaccid attempts to insult me, why
don't you try to demonstrate how you have used critical thinking to
conclude that these invisible* being(s) exist.
* If they aren't invisible, then they sure do a good job of mimicking
all the characteristic of being invisible.
whirl_pool
#1439
Electro
>Message-id: <37ca13de...@news.supernews.com>
>
>On 29 Aug 1999 09:48:46 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>>From: whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com (LP)
>>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 03:41 PM EDT
>>>Message-id: <37c93b69...@news.supernews.com>
>>>
>>>On 28 Aug 1999 15:16:10 GMT, elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro )
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>>>>From: whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com (LP)
>>>>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 03:47 AM EDT
>>>>
>>>>Critical thinking has assured me that you are not a critical thinker.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Provide one shred of evidence that these invisible being(s) you speak
>>>of exist, and you will have made your point.
>>
>>Since you are a Zen Buddhist, I needn't explain the relationships between
>your
>>khandas and samsara, do I?
>
>I do not agree with the use of the word "your" in the question above.
>Khandas and Samsara are characteristics of existence, as am I.
> I do not believe there is any other relationship between these two
>characteristics.
Then you are not a Buddhist in any sense of the word "Buddhist," because the
doctrines of karma, reincarnation, and enlightenment rest upon those
relationships. You cannot discern "right action" from "wrong action" or any
other discernment of the Eightfold Path without a recognition of the
relationships between khandas and samsara.
>>That said, I don't recall speaking of invisible beings, so I needn't address
>>you strawman, or answer the complex question it comprises.
>>
>>Nor will I allow you to attempt to shift the topic from your as yet
>unsupported
>>claim that atheism is a product of critical thinking, and theists need only
>>more critical thinking to become atheists. I will also continue to point out
>>each fallacy and prejudice you employ to dodge examination and inquiry into
>why
>>you made such an asinine statement in the first place. Ultimately, you have
>two
>>options. You could retract the statement, and go learn at least as much
>about
>>critical thinking and logical methods as you pretend you know already, or
>you
>>could produce support for your statement and refute me to silence. It's that
>>easy.
>I have not shifted from the topic, I have shifted to the very crux of
>the topic.
The "crux" of the topic is your claim that "critical thinking leads to
atheism." As a critical thinker who finds it irrational to profess belief in
untestable claims such as "there is no god," I found your claim rather
specious. If atheism and theism are polar opposites (I'm not convinced they
are) this would seem to imply that theists do not employ critical thinking.
There is a wealth of philosophers throughout history who demonstrate this is
simply not the case. (Spinoza, Voltaire, and Kant for example)
>You say you are not speaking of invisible being(s).
No, I say you have no fucking clue what critical thinking is because you can't
defend your specious claim so you pretend I mentioned invisible beings and
ramble on with a strawman definition of a theist as "someone who believes in
imaginary beings."
Address what I -have- said, idiot.
> If it, or they, are not invisible, it should be easy for you to
2>prove it, or they, exist.
Prove your Buddha-nature exists.
>It seems that you believe something exists that has ALL the
>characteristics of something that really doesn't exist.
I haven't really talked about -ANY- of my beliefs, except for the one you
continue to reinforce, which is:
"Whirlpool has no fucking clue what critical thinking is."
This is the topic. The only way to refute it is to stay on topic and
demonstrate some critical thinking skills.
>Very convenient for your argument, but very illogical.
Again, you are mistaking my argument
(Whirlpool has no fucking clue what critical thinking is) for your manufactured
strawman attributions of words never uttered by me (that I believe in imaginary
beings).
You have baldly asserted that "critical thinking leads to atheism." Am I to
infer that critical thinking ceases when one becomes an atheist, or that you
are not an atheist yet because you can't critically think?
>After reading your responses, I am even more convinced than before
>that theist are the way they are because they lack critical thinking
>skills.
And having no fucking clue what critical thinking skills are, much less
possessing any, you're quite free to be convinced of anything you damn well
please. But don't assume people who think critically are going to be impressed.
>Instead of continuing with your flaccid attempts to insult me, why
>don't you try to demonstrate how you have used critical thinking to
>conclude that these invisible* being(s) exist.
Why? Because the topic is your highly unintelligent assertion that "critical
thinking leads to atheism" and my continued demonstration of the fact that you
can't manage to support this assertion with anything resembling critical
thought, but rather non sequiturs and strawmen ("prove that imaginary beings
exist," as if that were my position). This is not a discussion about atheism
and theism, this is a discussion about critical thinking. You have no fucking
clue what critical thinking is, therefore you continue to attempt to shift the
topic away from your claim "critical thinking leads to atheism." You can
retract your claim, or you can defend it. You made the damned claim, the burden
of proof is on you. Bring it! Quit farting in the wind.
>* If they aren't invisible, then they sure do a good job of mimicking
>all the characteristic of being invisible.
The only thing invisible in this discussion is your alleged critical thinking
skills.
Jeffrey A. Young
Michael Stanley <JMic...@Zworldnet.att.netZ> wrote:
>On 27 Aug 1999 23:44:11 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>>I don't hate you, Michael. I just think you are a liar and an idiot.
>
>That kind of an attitude without even knowing what I'm about
>qualifies as hate in my book.
That kind of a response qualifies as projection (psychological)
in my book.
Jeff
----
"Whether you like it or not, the square root of minus one has about as
much to do with the real world as a unicorn does." - NMS
LP
Since it is the nature of "critical thinking" that seems to have you
confused, here is a web page that may be of help.
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
whirl_pool
#1439
Michael Stanley
Young) wrote:
>In article <37c8755c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Michael Stanley <JMic...@Zworldnet.att.netZ> wrote:
>>On 27 Aug 1999 23:44:11 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>I don't hate you, Michael. I just think you are a liar and an idiot.
>>
>>That kind of an attitude without even knowing what I'm about
>>qualifies as hate in my book.
>
>That kind of a response qualifies as projection (psychological)
>in my book.
>
>Jeff
That seems consistent with your personality. :)
Michael Stanley
Atheist at large
Michael Stanley
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>From: JMic...@Zworldnet.att.netZ (Michael Stanley)
>>Date: Sat, 28 August 1999 08:12 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <37c87a17...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
>>
>>On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 05:14:48 -0700, Edward Croteaux
>><granp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>After much trimming of HTML code the following readable text emerged:
>>>I'm peering at your sig there MS, and for some reason; WANTED comes
>>>to mind; LOL; Was that your intent ?
>>
>>Actually it was to some extent. It was a joke about how some theists
>>would like to stamp out all atheists, but here I am running about
>>free. I try to only use that sig on this newsgroup.
>>
>>Michael Stanley
>>Athiest at large
> ^^^^^^^^^
>You mispelled bigot.
No, I misspelled atheist. :)
Thanks for pointing it out. It looks like my dyslexia struck again.
And before you point it out, yes, I recognize your attempted insult.
I just don't care. :)
Ace Ventura
>
> Ace Ventura <aceve...@goober.net> wrote in
> <37C7BEBC...@goober.net>:
>
> >Dr Sinister wrote:
> >> The statement "I lack belief in X", no matter what X is, is a
> >> statement that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to
> >> anything.
>
> >Why is that, because you say so?
>
Apparently to you it is. The rest of us on planet earth find that a
persons beliefs, or lack of beliefs, do have relevance to both the
person, and to others, in understanding something about the person.
You, for instance, find atheists stupid. Well, the information that
they gave you about their (lack of) belief, was useful to you in
determining that (in your mind), they are stupid. See how it works?
> >If we were about to enter what was
> >reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
> >my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
> >and perhaps to the person I made it to.
>
> Alright, so you tell me you are a weak a(ghost)ist. Now, I have to assume
> you aren't a strong a(ghost)ist as well. After all, I don't want you to
> get all bent out of shape if I guess your beliefs wrong.
Shove your strong and weak bullshit up your ass, I couldn't care less what
you want to call it. If someone says, when about to enter a haunted house,
that they don't have belief in ghosts, that information MAY have relevance
to the person they tell. Maybe not to Sinister, but that _is_ irrelevant.
> Ok, so we come up to the haunted house, and I say, 'Ace, tell me
> something useful.' And you reply with 'I am a weak a(ghost)ist.' So
>
> 1. you lack belief in the existence of ghosts.
> 2. you lack belief in the nonexistence of ghosts.
> Oh yeah, this information is really useful to someone. Ok I'm being
> sarcastic. IT'S TOTALLY USELESS VERBIAGE. Understand? (BTW, 2 comes from
> you _not_ being a strong a(ghost)ist.)
No moron, it means, in plain English, "I ain't afraid of no ghosts"!
(Because, in this instance, the person doesn't believe in them).
> >It would contain information about me,
>
> 'I lack belief in the existence of ghosts and I also lack belief in the
> nonexistence of ghosts' tells me you have problems, Ace.
Go back to the original scenario: Two people walking towards a haunted
house, yada yada yada. One persons comment that he doesn't believe in
ghosts MAY have relevance to the person he was talking to. The fact
that YOU wouldn't find the information personally useful has no bearing
on whether other people would.
> >and while you personally might not care less, it wouldn't
> >diminish it's relevance to those who might find the information useful
> >or interesting.
>
> Can you point out someone who would find this information useful? Aside
> from its entertainment or jocular value?
Like I said, you have found the information that atheists give you about
their lack of beliefs useful for forming an opinion about them, and out
of the other side of your mouth you say this type of information tells
you nothing. You are the one being contradictory here, not I.
> > You might wish to think your statement through some more.
>
> Heh.
Heh indeed!
Dr Sinister
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>> The statement "I lack belief in X", no matter what X is, is a
>> statement that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to
>> anything.
>Why is that, because you say so?
Because it's obvious, lummox.
>If we were about to enter what was
>reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
>my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
>and perhaps to the person I made it to.
Alright, so you tell me you are a weak a(ghost)ist. Now, I have to assume
you aren't a strong a(ghost)ist as well. After all, I don't want you to
get all bent out of shape if I guess your beliefs wrong.
Ok, so we come up to the haunted house, and I say, 'Ace, tell me
something useful.' And you reply with 'I am a weak a(ghost)ist.' So
1. you lack belief in the existence of ghosts.
2. you lack belief in the nonexistence of ghosts.
Oh yeah, this information is really useful to someone. Ok I'm being
sarcastic. IT'S TOTALLY USELESS VERBIAGE. Understand? (BTW, 2 comes from
you _not_ being a strong a(ghost)ist.)
>It would contain information
>about me,
'I lack belief in the existence of ghosts and I also lack belief in the
nonexistence of ghosts' tells me you have problems, Ace.
>and while you personally might not care less, it wouldn't
>diminish it's relevance to those who might find the information useful
>or interesting.
Can you point out someone who would find this information useful? Aside
from its entertainment or jocular value?
> You might wish to think your statement through some
>more.
Heh.
--
"Ad hom attack, shit for brains. Adds nothing to the knowledge base."
- Skeptic
Dr Sinister
<19990828122959...@ng-fn1.aol.com>:
>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>From: Ace Ventura aceve...@goober.net
>>Why is that, because you say so? If we were about to enter what was
>>reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
>>my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
>>and perhaps to the person I made it to. It would contain information
>>about me, and while you personally might not care less, it wouldn't
>>diminish it's relevance to those who might find the information useful
>>or interesting. You might wish to think your statement through some
>>more.
>I think Dr. Sinister would agree with me that the statement "I lack
>belief in ghosts" holds no relevant epistemological value as an
>informative statement.
I certainly would.
>It is a phenomenological language shift that
>avoids making the empirical claims "There is no such thing as ghosts" or
>"I believe ghosts do not exist."
When an atheists keeps insisting that he 'lacks belief in X', he is
insisting that you make a precise distinction along the lines of
non-strong weak aXism and strong aXism. This line is very sharp. And the
atheist will keep reminding you which side of the line you are on, when
it suits his purpose to do so.
Why not grant the atheist his wish? Precisely define aXism as non-strong
aXism, and stay on the correct side of the line. And then, of course, you
can proceed to draw up a plethora of paradoxical implications and reveal
just how stuping these definitions really are.
Which is what you and I have been doing.
I have come to realize that the atheist's mental block goes much deeper
than this language/epistemology shift. No doubt, the atheist wishes to
insulate himself from fallacies by hiding in the 'lack of belief'
language shift, while at the same time claiming and acting as if gods are
nonexistent. This we already know, and there are thousands of examples.
You will find a good example in your dialogue with Mark Richardson.
But in the process of formulating atheism as 'lack of belief', the
atheist has made atheism INDEPENDENT of logic and science. 'Lack of
beliefs ' have no more relation to logic than the poetry of Whalt
Whitman. It's a claim that has nothing to do with anything. And here is
the really strange part: even though this 'atheism' has nothing to do
with anything at all, atheists still feel compelled to redefine the
entire nature of logic...
raven1 <psyched...@erols.com> wrote in
<37d5a342...@news.erols.com>:
>Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief in god/s.
>Logic dictates that the burden of proof rests with the positive
>claimant, and that in the absence of such proof, the negative position
>is assumed to be true by default. All claims of "god" are positive
>claims. As there is no compelling evidence to regard any of them as
>true, it is entirely reasonable to hold that the negative position,
>atheism, is in fact correct.
...even though it is unnecessary to do so. It's like redefining the
Hungarian lexicon because you don't like oatmeal. To explain why an
atheist does this, is to venture into the realms of individual psychology
and the psychology of mass behavior.
[snip]
>Now the question is, "Can you make a testable claim consistent with
>atheism?"
[snip]
>If you answer "no" then you understand why Dr. Sinister and I find
>claims of atheism meaningless, because of the claim's irrational,
>untestable basis.
That's just one of many reasons.
Ace Ventura
> >Dr Sinister wrote:
> >>
> >> LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> <37c88720...@news.supernews.com>:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >Absolutely untrue
> >> > If, as you say, you are a critical thinker, and if as you say, you
> >> >are not yet an atheist, it does not make my statement "critical
> >> >thinking leads to atheism", untrue. If you are still unsure, look up
> >> >the word "leads".
> >>
> >> that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to anything.
> >
> >reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
> >my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
> >and perhaps to the person I made it to. It would contain information
> >about me, and while you personally might not care less, it wouldn't
> >diminish it's relevance to those who might find the information useful
> >or interesting. You might wish to think your statement through some more.
>
> I think Dr. Sinister would agree with me that the statement "I lack belief in
> is a phenomenological language shift that avoids making the empirical claims
> "There is no such thing as ghosts" or "I believe ghosts do not exist."
Forgive the time lag, I didn't even see your post to me until I checked the
references from Dr. Sinister's reply. You are correct, there is no relevant
"knowledge" value in the statement, but it still contains information about
the person's belief system, which CAN have relevance to others. For instance,
as I pointed out to Dr. Sinister, his opinion that atheists are stupid is
based on their stated lack of belief in something. So, it _is_ relevant to
him, at least in forming an opinion about their thinking process. Why would
it be _less_ relevant for others?
> This is the same ultimately meaningless phenomenological language shift
> employed by those who mystically engender a difference between "weak" and
> "strong" atheism, the "weak" commit themselves to untestable claims (which put
> their commitments in the EXACT same category as religious commitments) and the
> "strong" commit themselves to empirical claims they can't defend (which makes
> them irrational) Since the "line" between "weak" and "strong" fails to survive
> any analytical assault, we can reasonably be assured that a claim of atheism is
> merely a claim of commitment to irrationality.
Since I've never claimed atheism for myself, strong or weak, it's difficult
for me to follow their thought process. Where I do agree with them, is that I
don't think it matters whether or not their claims of lack of belief are
testable or not. I don't believe my ex-wife loves me anymore. I can't prove my
claim, regardless of what she might say or not say, but I don't really care if
I can or not, and my (lack of) belief that she does, while quite possibly
wrong, does contain information about our relationship, or at the least, my
perception of it.
> Now, back to your "ghost" analogy. what exactly do you mean when you say "I
> lack belief in ghosts?" Are you a strong "a-ghostist" or a weak "a-ghostist?"
> Note that the existence of ghosts is not the issue here, but rather what drives
> a person to say they do (or do not). To do this, one must support his
> conclusion with more than his premise (a.k.a. not argue in a circle) by filling
> in the essence of their statement with testable claims. This gives a statement
> relevance value. The test of the claim itself determines its truth value.
Again, being only vaguely familiar with "weak" and "strong" claims of atheism,
(I don't usually post to alt.atheism, nor do I read posts from there unless
crossposted), I'm not quite sure how to apply it (correctly) to "ghostism". In
reply to your question about the "lack of belief in ghosts" claim, let's say
for
the sake of discussion it means, to me, "I doubt that they exist". I know this
doesn't fit neatly into the "strong and weak" atheist analogy, but as I said,
I don't claim to be an atheist.
> Now the question is, "Can you make a testable claim consistent with atheism?"
I don't think anyone can prove a claim of belief, or lack thereof. They can
show
signs that _imply_ what they may believe, or not, but nothing that _proves_
such claims. I never felt an atheist _could_ prove such a claim, but then again,
I never required proof, to find their descriptions of their (lack of) beliefs
useful in understanding something about them.
> If you answer "yes" them please provide the world with your testable claim so
> that it may be tested, and prepare for the rush of accolades from the
> philosophical community for being the first person to ever inject rationality
> into atheism.
>
> If you answer "no" then you understand why Dr. Sinister and I find claims of
> atheism meaningless, because of the claim's irrational, untestable basis.
I posed this question previously: If someone claimed they had a dream about
you the night before, you would have no way of testing the claim. That would
not make the claim irrational, only untestable, or do you think otherwise?
Electro
>Message-id: <37CCCBA0...@goober.net>
You are missing the point. A "weak" atheist claims he "lacks belief in gods." A
"strong" atheist claims "gods do not exist." The people who believe they are
atheists will jump all over your ass if you try to imply their "lack of belief"
is an alternate belief system. Expressions of a belief system DO have relevance
to others. It is the so-called atheists who bend over backwards to not admit
they have a belief system that excludes the existence of gods. They do this out
of fear that possession of a belief system can be equated with a religion. It
is hardly the aatheist's fault that atheists define themselves out of
existence.
>> This is the same ultimately meaningless phenomenological language shift
>> employed by those who mystically engender a difference between "weak" and
>> "strong" atheism, the "weak" commit themselves to untestable claims (which
>put
>> their commitments in the EXACT same category as religious commitments) and
>the
>> "strong" commit themselves to empirical claims they can't defend (which
>makes
>> them irrational) Since the "line" between "weak" and "strong" fails to
>survive
>> any analytical assault, we can reasonably be assured that a claim of
>atheism is
>> merely a claim of commitment to irrationality.
>
>Since I've never claimed atheism for myself, strong or weak, it's difficult
>for me to follow their thought process.
Be fair. We are talking about the so-called atheist's lack of a thought
process.
Where I do agree with them, is that I
>don't think it matters whether or not their claims of lack of belief are
>testable or not. I don't believe my ex-wife loves me anymore. I can't prove
>my
>claim, regardless of what she might say or not say, but I don't really care
>if
>I can or not, and my (lack of) belief that she does, while quite possibly
>wrong, does contain information about our relationship, or at the least, my
>perception of it.
Which is making a positive statement of your beliefs for which you can present
supporting evidence for its conclusion being rational. Which is something
so-called atheists refuse to do.
>> Now, back to your "ghost" analogy. what exactly do you mean when you say "I
>> lack belief in ghosts?" Are you a strong "a-ghostist" or a weak
>"a-ghostist?"
>> Note that the existence of ghosts is not the issue here, but rather what
>drives
>> a person to say they do (or do not). To do this, one must support his
>> conclusion with more than his premise (a.k.a. not argue in a circle) by
>filling
>> in the essence of their statement with testable claims. This gives a
>statement
>> relevance value. The test of the claim itself determines its truth value.
>
>Again, being only vaguely familiar with "weak" and "strong" claims of
>atheism,
>(I don't usually post to alt.atheism, nor do I read posts from there unless
>crossposted), I'm not quite sure how to apply it (correctly) to "ghostism".
>In
>reply to your question about the "lack of belief in ghosts" claim, let's say
>for
>the sake of discussion it means, to me, "I doubt that they exist". I know
>this
>doesn't fit neatly into the "strong and weak" atheist analogy, but as I said,
>I don't claim to be an atheist.
And you shouldn't. Atheism, as defined by those who claim it, can only
logically apply to the lack of sentience-capacity inferred by dead and
inanimate objects.
>> Now the question is, "Can you make a testable claim consistent with
>atheism?"
>
>I don't think anyone can prove a claim of belief, or lack thereof. They can
>show
>signs that _imply_ what they may believe, or not, but nothing that _proves_
>such claims. I never felt an atheist _could_ prove such a claim, but then
>again,
>I never required proof, to find their descriptions of their (lack of) beliefs
>useful in understanding something about them.
>
>> If you answer "yes" them please provide the world with your testable claim
>so
>> that it may be tested, and prepare for the rush of accolades from the
>> philosophical community for being the first person to ever inject
>rationality
>> into atheism.
>>
>> If you answer "no" then you understand why Dr. Sinister and I find claims
>of
>> atheism meaningless, because of the claim's irrational, untestable basis.
>
>I posed this question previously: If someone claimed they had a dream about
>you the night before, you would have no way of testing the claim. That would
>not make the claim irrational, only untestable, or do you think otherwise?
It is ultimately untestable, but it would be irrational to non-form a
non-society of non-dream claim believers on the basis of the untestability of a
dreamer's claim, and expect untestable claims held by you to not recieve the
same scrutiny.
You've discovered the vein of satire and parody of aatheism. Want an aatheist
number?
Kenny
If what moves you to do a good deed is just pleasing someone or
something
to achieve certain things from him or it.... you maybe a merchant, a
calculator
or a climber but you will never be a good person!
If you do things with the hidden ultimate desire to achieve heaven
or you
don´t do bad things fearing hell you are just a selfish person looking for a
kickback,
Only if you behave and care for your neighbours, not expecting any
further
payment in heaven, not worried about burning in hell if you don´t do it,
then you
are a good person.
When you know there is no god, no heaven, no hell and you act well
in
life you deserve the right to be a good person.
Once you believe in some of these myths your acts lose their
value because
you are acting just to achieve other egotistic goals.
Kenny
From Florida... capital of the sun!...
Dr Sinister wrote:
> Electro <elect...@aol.come2gether> wrote in
> <19990828122959...@ng-fn1.aol.com>:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
> >>From: Ace Ventura aceve...@goober.net
> >>Why is that, because you say so? If we were about to enter what was
> >>reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
> >>my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
> >>and perhaps to the person I made it to. It would contain information
> >>about me, and while you personally might not care less, it wouldn't
> >>diminish it's relevance to those who might find the information useful
> >>or interesting. You might wish to think your statement through some
> >>more.
>
> >I think Dr. Sinister would agree with me that the statement "I lack
> >belief in ghosts" holds no relevant epistemological value as an
> >informative statement.
>
> I certainly would.
>
> >It is a phenomenological language shift that
> >avoids making the empirical claims "There is no such thing as ghosts" or
> >"I believe ghosts do not exist."
>
> >Now the question is, "Can you make a testable claim consistent with
> >atheism?"
>
> [snip]
>
> >If you answer "no" then you understand why Dr. Sinister and I find
> >claims of atheism meaningless, because of the claim's irrational,
> >untestable basis.
>
egor
>
> Ace Ventura <aceve...@goober.net> wrote in
> <37C7BEBC...@goober.net>:
>
> >Dr Sinister wrote:
> >> statement that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to
> >> anything.
>
>
>
> >reported to be a haunted house, and I said I lacked belief in ghosts,
> >my belief, and subsequent statement of it, would have relevance to me,
> >and perhaps to the person I made it to.
>
> you aren't a strong a(ghost)ist as well. After all, I don't want you to
> get all bent out of shape if I guess your beliefs wrong.
>
> Ok, so we come up to the haunted house, and I say, 'Ace, tell me
> something useful.' And you reply with 'I am a weak a(ghost)ist.' So
>
> 1. you lack belief in the existence of ghosts.
> 2. you lack belief in the nonexistence of ghosts.
>
> Oh yeah, this information is really useful to someone. Ok I'm being
> sarcastic. IT'S TOTALLY USELESS VERBIAGE. Understand? (BTW, 2 comes from
> you _not_ being a strong a(ghost)ist.)
>
> >about me,
>
> nonexistence of ghosts' tells me you have problems, Ace.
You missed the point that the Dr. was making here. What you're referring to
as a lack of belief *in* ghosts, Dr. Sinister is referring to as a lack
of belief *about* ghosts. In other words, you're trying to imply, Ace, that
you lack the belief that they do exist, Sinister's trying to imply that you
have a lack of belief about them, one way or the other. Semantically you two
are talking about "lack of beliefs" in two different ways. The question is,
what is the interpretation of your stated claim going to be, by most of the
people you're trying to communicate with? All else is secondary to this.
Electro
As presented by Electro, strong aatheist...
Of all the self-classified people who baldly assert that they are either "weak"
or "strong" atheists, the common banner they march under is the statement "We
lack belief in gods."
This claim "the lack of belief in gods" has been equated with atheism so often
and so many times, that any serious aatheist must examine the claim carefully
and for what it is worth.
Let us look at what the alleged atheist claims about himself. He claims to
"lack belief in gods." Now, we all know what the word "belief" means. A belief
is the statement of something believed. So, what is believing?
The dictionary (AOL's online Merriam Webster) defines "believe" as:
==========
be*lieve (verb) be*lieved; be*liev*ing
[Middle English beleven, from Old English belefan, from be- + lyfan, lefan to
allow, believe; akin to Old High German gilouben to believe, Old English leof
dear -- more at LOVE]
verb intransitive
First appeared before 12th Century
1 a : to have a firm religious faith
b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we ~ in> <~s in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of
something <~ in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I ~ so>
verb transitive
1 a : to consider to be true or honest <~ the reports> <you wouldn't ~ how
long it took>
b : to accept the word or evidence of <I ~ you> <couldn't ~ my ears>
2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I ~ it will rain soon>
==========
From this, we can infer that the so-called atheist, when he claims a "lack of
belief" is making at least one of the following seven negative claims. (Their
logical conversion into positive claims appears in parentheses)
A. "I lack a firm religious faith in gods" ("I am irreligious about gods")
B. "I lack the acceptance of gods as true, genuine, or real." ("I accept gods
are false, fraudulent, and non-existent")
C. "I lack a firm conviction of the goodness, efficacy, or ability of gods."
("I find gods to be detrimental, useless, and incapable.")
D. "I lack any thoughts of gods." ("I have no opinions of gods.")
E. "I lack consideration of gods as true or honest" ("I consider gods false or
dishonest."
F. "I lack acceptance of the word or evidence of gods." ("I hold a bias or
prejudice against gods")
G. "I lack suppositions concerning gods" ("I form no opinions about gods")
Using the 3 laws of logic (non-contradiction, identity, and excluded middle) we
can tear down any misconceptions we might form from what the self-professed
atheist is claiming when he says he "lacks belief" and reveal exactly what he
means.
A is A
A does not exclude B, C, D, E, F, or G
but
B excludes D (the opinions that gods are false, fraudulent, and non-existent
cannot be stated as possessing a lack of thoughts about gods)
and
B excludes G (the opinion that gods are false, fraudulent, and non-existent
cannot be stated as possessing a lack of suppositions about gods)
and
C excludes D (A firm conviction that gods are detrimental, useless, or
incapable cannot be stated as possessing a lack of opinion about gods)
and
C excludes G (A firm conviction that gods are detrimental, useless, or
incapable cannot be stated as possessing a lack of suppositions about gods)
and
D excludes B (A lack of opinion about gods cannot be stated as an acceptance of
opinions about the truth, authenticity, or existence of gods)
and
D excludes C (A lack of opinion about gods cannot be stated as a firm
conviction about the goodness, efficacy, or ability of gods)
and
D excludes E (A lack of opinion about gods cannot be stated as a consideration
of gods as truthful or honest)
and
D excludes F (A lack of opinion about gods cannot be stated as a rejection of
the word and evidence of gods)
and
2E excludes D (A consideration of the falsity and dishonesty of gods cannot be
stated as a lack of opinion about gods)
and
E excludes G (A consideration of the the falsity and dishonesty of gods cannot
be stated as a lack of possessing a supposition about gods)
and
F excludes D (a prejudicial bias against gods cannot be stated as a lack of
opinion about gods)
and
F excludes G (a prejudicial bias against gods cannot be stated as a lack of
possessing a supposition about gods)
and
G excludes B (a lack of supposition about gods cannot be stated as an
acceptance of opinions about the truth, authenticity, or existence of gods.)
and
G excludes C (a lack of supposition about gods cannot be stated as a firm
conviction about the goodness, efficacy, or ability of gods)
and
G excludes E (a lack of supposition about gods cannot be stated as a
consideration of the truth or honesty of gods)
and
G excludes F (a lack of supposition about gods cannot be stated as a rejection
of the word or evidence of gods)
----
Therefore, the only logical conclusion we can make about someone who says the
are an "atheist" because they "lack belief in gods" is that an atheist is:
An irreligious person [A] that does NOT think [D] or suppose [G] the following:
gods do not exist [B is not D; B is not G]
gods aren't good, efficacious, or capable [C is not D; C is not G]
gods aren't true or honest [E is not D, E is not G]
or display any bias or prejudice against the word or evidence of god [F is not
D, F is not G]
Hence, "weak atheists" exclude "strong atheists" from the definition of
atheism, and the definition of atheism reduces "weak atheists" to those
irreligious people who never expand their irreligiousity to a distrust, a
non-acceptance, a firm conviction against, a bias towards, a prejudice against,
or a denial of the existence of gods.
Atheists do not exist.
QED
Electro
aatheist # 2
"The meaning of a statement is its method of verification. Except of course,
the statement that preceeded this one."
Fish
[...]
> Heh.
<<<BOGGLE!>>
<checks headers>
!!!!!!!!!!
<promptly faints>
(Thud!)
[NO CARRIER]
Skeptic
atheism, or the certain denial that atheists exist, based on solid evidence?
All this is so lame, Electro. If you actually had anything, you would be
showing proof positive, or even some valid inference that some god exists,
rather than wasting space here on a lame study of a non-controversy, the
existence of atheists.
I love your working hypothesis, though: "Atheists do not exist." That
universal statement is the only scientific working hypothesis possible
concerning the existence of atheists. Likewise, "Gods do not exist" is the
only scientific statement possible concerning the existence of gods. They
are both scientific because it is possible to contradict them with any basic
statement reporting evidence for the existence of an atheist, or a god. Any
other hypothesis, such as "X exists" is not scientific since it is
impossible to show that it is false, even if it is false.
Let me stab at your alleged "reasoning" (pasted below in full.)
You quote the definition of the word BELIEVE from the online M-W,
" ... 1 a: to have a firm religious faith...."
That same dictionary says about faith,
"FAITH implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof."
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
If there is anything I lack, I lack the habit of taking a position of
certitude where there is no evidence. I have a particular lack of religious
faith in deities, those controversial alleged entities, the existence of
which is under discussion in this forum, and any evidence for, or proof of
the existence of which, you faithful believers have consistently failed to
provide.
I don't blame you for attempting to change the subject to the existence of
atheists, since proving that your god exists seems to be impossible.
However, your assertion, below, is that atheists do not exist because the
atheist position, "I lack belief in any gods" is an alleged impossibility.
This you have failed to prove.
The most glaring failure is in inferring, from the M-W definition of belief,
that the atheist, "... when he claims a 'lack of belief' is making at least
one of the following seven negative claims. (Their logical conversion into
positive claims appears in parentheses)" The conversions are not valid
inferences.
Consider the first two, A and B, for example. In A, the atheist reports his
lack of faith, in other words, lack of 'certitude even when there is no
evidence'. You insist on converting that to, "I am irreligious about gods."
I don't blame you for wanting to convert it to something that fits the case
you are trying to make, but any conversion is totally unnecessary. It is
perfectly reasonable to say simply that I lack certitude when there is no
evidence so I lack faith in gods so I lack belief in gods so I am not a
theist I am an atheist.
In B, The atheist reports, "I lack the acceptance of gods as true, genuine,
or real." This means the same as A. If I lack certitude when there is no
evidence, that means that I do not accept that gods exist, are true, are
genuine, or are real when there is no evidence. You insist on converting
that to, "I accept gods are false, fraudulent, and non-existent." That is
not a valid inference. Saying that I lack acceptance of the existence of
gods, due to lack of evidence, does not require me to say that I am certain
that gods do not exist. They may all be hiding out there, somewhere, hiding
so well that mere mortals can find no evidence they exist. As a skeptic, I
am content to wait for the truly faithful to produce some evidence to
support their extraordinary claims. Meanwhile, I remain skeptical, and since
I justifiably lack belief in gods, I am a certifiable atheist. QED. I might
apply for a number, but I have never been much of a joiner.
Electro <elect...@aol.comunplonkt> wrote in message
news:19990901121220...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
xo...@my-deja.com
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> LP <whirl...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in
> <37c88720...@news.supernews.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Absolutely untrue
> > If, as you say, you are a critical thinker, and if as you say,
you
> >are not yet an atheist, it does not make my statement "critical
> >thinking leads to atheism", untrue. If you are still unsure, look up
> >the word "leads".
>
statement
> that contains absolutley no information nor relevance to anything.
What about the statement "I lack belief in atheism"? Does that statement
contain information or relevance? If someone makes such a statement to a
group of atheists, is it just vapid blather that an atheist or any other
person who values substantive rationality should ignore?
You may think so, but I think it's more useful and informative a
statement than "Atheism does not exist." Whereas the second statement
cannot be tested, the first can be, by comparing past and future
statements the speaker makes about atheism. Virtually every statement we
make--every assertion, anyway--is an ellided "I believe" statement,
because every statement we make is the product of our imperfect and
parochial brains. Every statement we hear has to be evaluated on the
basis of where it's coming from. Your saying "Atheism does not exist"
really doesn't tell me anything more about the world than that you
believe atheism does not exist. It certainly doesn't tell me anything
about atheism. Even your exquisite "proof" that atheism doesn't exist
tells me more about--or, at least, gives me more reliable information
about--what's in your head than what's in the world.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>THE LEXICOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE NON-EXISTENCE OF ATHEISTS
>
>As presented by Electro, strong aatheist...
>
Ha! You are a riot, funny guy!
>Of all the self-classified people who baldly assert that they are either "weak"
>or "strong" atheists, the common banner they march under is the statement "We
>lack belief in gods."
>
or
"we do not believe in gods"
>This claim "the lack of belief in gods" has been equated with atheism so often
>and so many times, that any serious aatheist must examine the claim carefully
>and for what it is worth.
>
>Let us look at what the alleged atheist claims about himself. He claims to
>"lack belief in gods." Now, we all know what the word "belief" means. A belief
>is the statement of something believed. So, what is believing?
>
>The dictionary (AOL's online Merriam Webster) defines "believe" as:
>
>==========
>
>be*lieve (verb) be*lieved; be*liev*ing
>
>[Middle English beleven, from Old English belefan, from be- + lyfan, lefan to
>allow, believe; akin to Old High German gilouben to believe, Old English leof
>dear -- more at LOVE]
>
>verb intransitive
>
>First appeared before 12th Century
>
> 1 a : to have a firm religious faith
>
> b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we ~ in> <~s in ghosts>
>
Atheists do not "accept as true genuine or real" a god or gods.
looks good so far.
> 2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of
>something <~ in exercise>
>
> 3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I ~ so>
>
>verb transitive
>
> 1 a : to consider to be true or honest <~ the reports> <you wouldn't ~ how
>long it took>
>
> b : to accept the word or evidence of <I ~ you> <couldn't ~ my ears>
>
> 2 : to hold as an opinion : SUPPOSE <I ~ it will rain soon>
>
>==========
>
>From this, we can infer that the so-called atheist, when he claims a "lack of
>belief" is making at least one of the following seven negative claims. (Their
>logical conversion into positive claims appears in parentheses)
>
>A. "I lack a firm religious faith in gods" ("I am irreligious about gods")
>
Fair enough.
>B. "I lack the acceptance of gods as true, genuine, or real." ("I accept gods
>are false, fraudulent, and non-existent")
>
Ha! Couldn't help yourself could you!
To not "accept as true genuine or real" a god or gods.
is the direct substitution.
One possible reason to not accept as true. genuine or real is that you
do accept all gods are false, fraudulent and non-existent.
Another possible reason to not accept as true, genuine or real is that
you have no reason or motivation to accept as true, genuine or real.
Another possible reason to not accept as true, genuine or real is that
you have no firm idea what "God" is supposed to be - apart from a
three letter word rhyming with "pod".
I believe that all gods are false, fraudulent or non-existent.
I am a strong atheist.
A christian would claim all gods *but my God* are false, fraudulent
and non existent.
A muslim would claim all gods *but Allah* are false, fraudulent and
non existent.
Etc etc.
I am like a Christian or Muslim in that I have a definite belief.
I am unlike a Christian or a Muslim in that I make no arbitary
distinctions between non existent things.
(which is irrational)
Gods, Dragons, leprachauns all get treated by me in exactly the same
manner.
A weak atheist is refraining from making claims *about* imaginary
freinds.
They are simply stating the bald fact -
I do not have one.
Weak atheist - I do not have an imaginary freind.
Theist - my imaginary freind is better than your imaginary freind.
Strong atheist - (weak atheist) + imaginary freinds are imaginary.
An agnostic is saying that there is no way of telling for certain if a
freind is an imaginary one.
<Rest snipped.>
Arguments by dictionary are intellectually vacuous.
This is not entirely your fault as some words have multiple meanings
and you sometimes choose the one possible negation over another to
make your point.
That is rhetoric.
I understand that.
However;
Many of us are a little too sophisticated to be taken in quite so
easily by such word games.
Nice try though.
Electro, some people really are atheists.
Instead of trying to re-arrange their words endlessly to try and make
them say something that they never intended -
and here is a truly radical thought
- why not try to understand what they are trying to say when they use
the words they do?
Would it kill you?
Would it cause you pain in some way?
How does someone having a different belief or lacking one of your
beliefs threaten you so?
What is this *really* about?
You can email me in confidence if you like.
I'll be gentle.
Cheers, Mark. m.rich...@utas.edu.au
Electro
>Date: Thu, 02 September 1999 11:17 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37cf3d05...@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
The answer lies in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass." Have a
psychetropic mushroom or two, and imagine me as Alice, and you atheists as
Humpty Dumpty.
[excerpting from Through the Looking Glass]
[...]
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I
meant 'there's a nice knockdown argument for you.'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knockdown argument,'" Alice objected.
"When -I- use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means
just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
[...]
[From "Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll]
Now, call me silly, but perhaps I object to the intangibility of the definition
of atheism as merely the "lack of belief in gods." That there is this
ludricrous distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism is demonstrated by
the fact that "weak atheists" can not deny the existence of gods (which IS
atheism, by the dictionary and common colloquial use). They are merely
non-believers,or lack-of-believers, if you will. In the context of the "weak
atheist" definition, Peter, the alleged founder of the Catholic Church, was a
weak atheist (for a day) because he denied Christ. Other, more insane examples
can be formed, but I'm sure you get my point.
>Would it kill you?
I hope not. I have things to do yet.
>Would it cause you pain in some way?
Pain, no.
>How does someone having a different belief or lacking one of your
>beliefs threaten you so?
Why must this come down to some mamby-pamby amateur psychoanalysis? I percieve
only one threat to me in my life, and he smiles at me in the mirror when I
shave.
>What is this *really* about?
It is about objecting to the use of non-specific language as employed by
atheists to dodge any relevant evidence that might be construed as intellectual
honesty from them.
>You can email me in confidence if you like.
>I'll be gentle.
Nah, I'll answer you here. It would have likely found its way here anyway, in
some form. The last atheistic chickenfucker I thought might be an honest
debater cut-and-pasted my e-mail to him back on alt.atheism, in strategically
altered form, then paraded like I said some off-the-wall goofy shit to him in
e-mail. So, if it's all the same, I'll represent myself to alt.atheism. No
offense.
Electro
>Date: Thu, 02 September 1999 10:42 AM EDT
>Message-id: <7qm2c5$ijn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
You aren't paying attention. Aatheists understand what atheism is. We lack
belief in atheists, not atheism.
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
>>From: m.rich...@utas.edu.au (Mark Richardson)
>>Date: Thu, 02 September 1999 11:17 PM EDT
>>Electro, some people really are atheists.
Honestly?
No.
I don't know what you are talking about.
To me its obvious.
You can reject something
You can accept something
You can with-hold acceptance until shown a good enough reason to
accept or reject.
Apparently this third option is impossible.
I cannot understand why.
Or if I am wrong and you do not in fact reject this third option
but the phrase "lack of belief in" still offends you, then come up
with a better way of expressing this third option.
>>How does someone having a different belief or lacking one of your
>>beliefs threaten you so?
>
>Why must this come down to some mamby-pamby amateur psychoanalysis?
Because I cannot see any logical reason behind your attitudes so I
look for the emotional sources.
I am just being curious
- and provacative - trying to get you to reasses your motives.
>I percieve
>only one threat to me in my life, and he smiles at me in the mirror when I
>shave.
>
>>What is this *really* about?
>
>It is about objecting to the use of non-specific language as employed by
>atheists to dodge any relevant evidence that might be construed as intellectual
>honesty from them.
>
They are *trying* to be honest.
(the vast majority of them.)
You do not believe that.
Again this is where I see some emotional factor comming into the
equation.
>>You can email me in confidence if you like.
>>I'll be gentle.
>
>Nah, I'll answer you here. It would have likely found its way here anyway, in
>some form. The last atheistic chickenfucker I thought might be an honest
>debater cut-and-pasted my e-mail to him back on alt.atheism, in strategically
>altered form, then paraded like I said some off-the-wall goofy shit to him in
>e-mail. So, if it's all the same, I'll represent myself to alt.atheism. No
>offense.
None taken.
I don't identify with dishonest, atheistic chickenfucker's.
8-)
(or even honest, atheistic chickenfuckers !)
It does look like we will be unable to communicate - we obviously come
from different planets or something.
Oh well.
At least I tried.
Mark.
P.S. I enjoyed the Lewis Carroll.
xo...@my-deja.com
elect...@aol.come2gether (Electro ) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
> >From: Ace Ventura aceve...@goober.net
> >Date: Wed, 01 September 1999 02:45 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <37CCCBA0...@goober.net>
[snip]
> >You are correct, there is no
relevant
> >"knowledge" value in the statement ["I lack belief in X"], but it
It seems to me you're making a gross generalization, mistaking the most
dogmatically reactionary anti-Christian atheists for the whole group. It
is possible to be atheist without being anti-Christian. It may even be
possible to be one without being dogmatic--I'm not sure. But I agree
that it is not possible to be one without a belief system or without
some fundamental faith in the wisdom, safety, rationality, etc., of
being godless. Is there any knowledge that isn't fundamentally taken on
faith?
Assume, however, a person who, for whatever reason or leap of faith,
values evidence-based rationality. Assume that person never comes in
contact with any direct, unambiguous evidence of a personal god or realm
of gods or supernature. He or she cannot help but come in contact with
evidence that other people believe they've had such contact, but this
is not the same as experiencing it for themselves. Even if their failure
to find, notice, or consider such direct evidence is based on prejudice
against it (and I'm not convinced it necessarily must be), why isn't it
reasonable for that person to conclude that it is rational to act as if
there is no god? Isn't it more intellectually honest for such a person
to assume there is no god--or even to conclude that, if there is one,
you don't need it to fulfill your life--than to go on a quest for
"knowledge" that is evidently (for that person) unnecessary? (Or do you
think it is somehow necessary for an individual to care about the god
problem--as necessary, for example, as it is to care about the food
problem?)
What is irrational about editing out of your repertoire of concerns that
particular set of questions and calling yourself an atheist for having
done so? You are not a theist, because you don't believe--or you
believe you don't believe, if you prefer--in gods or supernature. You
may be agnostic in a strict sense, in that you don't *know* any more
than (you believe) anyone else knows; but you are not in a state of
spiritual suspension, reserving judgment on questions of godliness until
all the evidence is in. You've decided not to spend time or energy
trying to believe in god, gods, and supernature, because as far as
you're concerned, they don't exist, or if they do, their existence
doesn't matter to you. As far as you know, what others refer to as
"divine" or "holy" is the product of a set of individual values and
intellectual emphases that you're not (and don't have sufficient
motivation to want to be) privvy to. If you must have a label for such a
spiritual stance, then what's wrong with "atheist"?
What else would you call such a stance? Or would you prefer not to label
it at all? Would you be happier if the definition of atheist were "one
for whom belief in god is unnecessary?" Or "one who believes belief in
god is unnecessary?"
> >> This is the same ultimately meaningless phenomenological language
shift
> >> employed by those who mystically engender a difference between
"weak" and
> >> "strong" atheism, the "weak" commit themselves to untestable claims
(which
> >put
> >> their commitments in the EXACT same category as religious
commitments) and
> >the
> >> "strong" commit themselves to empirical claims they can't defend
(which
> >makes
> >> them irrational) Since the "line" between "weak" and "strong" fails
to
> >survive
> >> any analytical assault, we can reasonably be assured that a claim
of
> >atheism is
> >> merely a claim of commitment to irrationality.
Come out a little further on the limb, here: By "a claim" do you mean
"any claim" of atheism? In other words, if you're not just bullshitting
(which, I know, you could very well be), are you concluding that all
atheists are irrational in a way that only atheists can be irrational?
Or are you referring specifically to the atheists who piss you off? If
atheistic belief is fundamentally irrational in a way no other belief
is, can you give an example of an -ism that isn't so irrational, or that
is as rational as rational can be?
I want to understand the ultimate relevance of your critique, because it
strikes me as being fundamentally off on a very narrow limb. Have you
reduced atheism from a general mode of belief like liberalism or
conservatism to the minuscule scale of a dogma like, say, Objectivism
(tm) or Scientology (tm)? Do you really think it must necessarily be so
narrow in scope? Is your attack against atheism in general or against
specific atheists? Do you think there's something fundamentally wrong,
perverse, amoral, or intellectually defective about atheism qua atheism,
even if it means simply deciding not to worry about the god problem and
seeking out or gravitating to the society (or testimony, if you prefer)
of others who've taken similar paths (because the society of people who
take the god problem seriously lacks a certain appeal)?
Dr Sinister
<37c8755c...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
>On 27 Aug 1999 23:44:11 GMT, Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Michael Stanley <JMic...@Zworldnet.att.netZ> wrote in
>><37c64ce5...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>Contrary to what your hate inspired
>>>words imply, atheists only prefer to not jump to conclusions.
>>
>>Michael, you're simply a liar. Here's the evidence:
>>
>>1. It is rational to deny existence _on the basis_ of argumentum ad
>>ignorantiam. I call that jumping to a conclusion:
>
><numerous quotes clipped>
>
>>There are hundreds more quotes like these. Each one is evidence that
>>you are either lying or just plain stupid.
>
>Wrong. The only thing that all atheists can be said to share is a
>lack of belief in a god.
Well, you have contradicted yourself again. On the one hand, you say...
"The only thing that all atheists can be said to share is a
lack of belief in a god."
...and on the other hand, you also say...
"atheists only prefer to not jump to conclusions."
...which is a lie of course. And a contradiction. You cannot have both
properties and at the same time, assert that atheism is only _one_
property.
So, not only do you lie, you also cannot formulate an argument without
instantly contradicting yourself. It seems you are a good atheist role
model after all.
[snip]
--
If atheism is the lack of belief in god, then baldness is the lack of
belief in hair. - Jean Paul Sartre
Electro
>Date: Fri, 03 September 1999 01:48 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7qp1l4$oea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Which is my point. "Weak atheists," by and large, seem to be agnostics who
"don't know" the meaning of the word "atheist."
Is there any knowledge that isn't fundamentally taken on
>faith?
Experiential knowledge. I am fully aware that yesterday happened.
>Assume, however, a person who, for whatever reason or leap of faith,
>values evidence-based rationality. Assume that person never comes in
>contact with any direct, unambiguous evidence of a personal god or realm
>of gods or supernature. He or she cannot help but come in contact with
>evidence that other people believe they've had such contact, but this
>is not the same as experiencing it for themselves. Even if their failure
>to find, notice, or consider such direct evidence is based on prejudice
>against it (and I'm not convinced it necessarily must be), why isn't it
>reasonable for that person to conclude that it is rational to act as if
>there is no god?
How do you make the leap from "no personal gods" to "no gods at all?" Why do
gods have to be personal? Are atheists so brainwashed as to think gods have to
corrollate to the Judeo-Christian model?
And what of personality anyway? If naturalism and materialism are true,
"personality" is just a groovy mix of impersonal electrochemicals and mental
processes in your head. Couldn't it be entirely possible that God has better
psychedelic drugs than we do? :-)
Seriously, if "personality" is just an effect of natural bio-chemical
reactions, and not some epiphenomenological thing-in-itself, then why must one
expect a god to exhibit an epiphenomenological personality?
Isn't it more intellectually honest for such a person
>to assume there is no god
On the basis of impersonality = non-existence?
An atheist (of the no gods exist because his argumentum-ad-ignorantium-says-so
school of thought) would be more intellectually honest only if he, consistent
with his mode of thinking that the absence of personally interactive gods
proves that all gods-in-general don't exist, requires all things said to
"exist" to possess a personality! In this way, "strong" atheism seems to be
very mystical, if not animistic, eh?
--or even to conclude that, if there is one,
>you don't need it to fulfill your life--than to go on a quest for
>"knowledge" that is evidently (for that person) unnecessary?
Weak atheism as mere agnostic irreligiousity, yes.
(Or do you
>think it is somehow necessary for an individual to care about the god
>problem--as necessary, for example, as it is to care about the food
>problem?)
No.
>What is irrational about editing out of your repertoire of concerns that
>particular set of questions and calling yourself an atheist for having
>done so?
Because it is merely a rejection of anthropomorphic, personal interpretations
for gods.
You are not a theist, because you don't believe--or you
>believe you don't believe, if you prefer--in gods or supernature. You
>may be agnostic in a strict sense, in that you don't *know* any more
>than (you believe) anyone else knows; but you are not in a state of
>spiritual suspension, reserving judgment on questions of godliness until
>all the evidence is in. You've decided not to spend time or energy
>trying to believe in god, gods, and supernature, because as far as
>you're concerned, they don't exist, or if they do, their existence
>doesn't matter to you. As far as you know, what others refer to as
>"divine" or "holy" is the product of a set of individual values and
>intellectual emphases that you're not (and don't have sufficient
>motivation to want to be) privvy to. If you must have a label for such a
>spiritual stance, then what's wrong with "atheist"?
Because "irreligious" or "secular" describes this belief system better.
No. I am specifically dealing with the intellectually fraudulent alliance
between "weak" and "strong" atheists by pulling agnostics, deists, and other
impersonal and/or irreligious theists (as "weak atheists") under the leaky
umbrella of atheism to attempt to conceal the fact that "strong atheists,"
those who proudly march forward with the traditional definition of atheism
(non-belief in the -existence- of gods), can only offer a basic logical fallacy
(argumentum ad ignorantium) as a defense of their stance on the existence
issue.
In other words, if you're not just bullshitting
>(which, I know, you could very well be),
I'm not.
are you concluding that all
>atheists are irrational in a way that only atheists can be irrational?
No, I am not concluding that at all. I am merely concluding that atheists who
advocate the "lack of belief" definition have defined themselves out of
existence.
>Or are you referring specifically to the atheists who piss you off?
No atheist has ever pissed me off. I've never met one that could speak. :-)
Seriously though, I am refering to this non-sensical inclusion of irreligious
theists and agnostics under the defining category of atheists.
If atheistic belief is fundamentally irrational in a way no other belief
>is, can you give an example of an -ism that isn't so irrational, or that
>is as rational as rational can be?
Astigmatism, the belief that all fine points must be blurred beyond
recognition, because perception is just a mind trick anyway, baby.
;-)
>I want to understand the ultimate relevance of your critique, because it
>strikes me as being fundamentally off on a very narrow limb. Have you
>reduced atheism from a general mode of belief like liberalism or
>conservatism to the minuscule scale of a dogma like, say, Objectivism
>(tm) or Scientology (tm)?
No, but you can count me among those who are in revulsion that atheism is
turning -itself- into that.
Do you really think it must necessarily be so
>narrow in scope? Is your attack against atheism in general or against
>specific atheists?
It's a wake up call. When definitions go out the window, it is possible to be a
Kantian epistemologist and not a Kantian epistemologist at the same time.
Do you think there's something fundamentally wrong,
>perverse, amoral, or intellectually defective about atheism qua atheism,
Other than its foundation upon the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy, no.
>even if it means simply deciding not to worry about the god problem and
>seeking out or gravitating to the society (or testimony, if you prefer)
>of others who've taken similar paths (because the society of people who
>take the god problem seriously lacks a certain appeal)?
Why not just be "irreligious" if that's what you are, and not misapply a label
to yourself that means you actively disbelieve in the -existence- of god? If
it's just the personal applications of a god concept one finds objectionable,
and not the issue of existence of gods itself, why not claim "irreligiousity"
instead of "atheism?"
xo...@my-deja.com
elect...@aol.comunplonkt (Electro ) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
> >Date: Fri, 03 September 1999 01:48 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <7qp1l4$oea$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
[snip]
> >
> >It seems to me you're making a gross generalization, mistaking the
most
> >dogmatically reactionary anti-Christian atheists for the whole group.
It
> >is possible to be atheist without being anti-Christian. It may even
be
> >possible to be one without being dogmatic--I'm not sure. But I agree
> >that it is not possible to be one without a belief system or without
> >some fundamental faith in the wisdom, safety, rationality, etc., of
> >being godless.
>
> Which is my point. "Weak atheists," by and large, seem to be agnostics
who
> "don't know" the meaning of the word "atheist."
>
> Is there any knowledge that isn't fundamentally taken on
> >faith?
>
> Experiential knowledge. I am fully aware that yesterday happened.
So you say. I'm even less certain your yesterday happened as you think
it did than I am that my yesterday happened as I think it did.
> >Assume, however, a person who, for whatever reason or leap of faith,
> >values evidence-based rationality. Assume that person never comes in
> >contact with any direct, unambiguous evidence of a personal god or
realm
> >of gods or supernature. He or she cannot help but come in contact
with
> >evidence that other people believe they've had such contact, but this
> >is not the same as experiencing it for themselves. Even if their
failure
> >to find, notice, or consider such direct evidence is based on
prejudice
> >against it (and I'm not convinced it necessarily must be), why isn't
it
> >reasonable for that person to conclude that it is rational to act as
if
> >there is no god?
>
> How do you make the leap from "no personal gods" to "no gods at all?"
Why do
> gods have to be personal? Are atheists so brainwashed as to think gods
have to
> corrollate to the Judeo-Christian model?
Can you give me an example of a god-concept that is not personal, ie
rational (at least partly) and self-conscious? What are mystics trying
to have a direct experience of if not evidence of a divine
consciousness? Can divine consciousness be unself-conscious? If so,
what's so divine about it?
> And what of personality anyway? If naturalism and materialism are
true,
> "personality" is just a groovy mix of impersonal electrochemicals and
mental
> processes in your head. Couldn't it be entirely possible that God has
better
> psychedelic drugs than we do? :-)
>
> Seriously, if "personality" is just an effect of natural bio-chemical
> reactions, and not some epiphenomenological thing-in-itself, then why
must one
> expect a god to exhibit an epiphenomenological personality?
What if "personality" describes the "location" of self-consciousness--or
even just plain consciousness, if you like--if we don't take "location"
to mean a "specific point in space?" Does that seem like a fair
definition? How could that not be an attribute of a god-thing? If the
divine lacks this kind of personality, how could anyone ever claim to
have any sense of it at all?
> Isn't it more intellectually honest for such a person
> >to assume there is no god
>
> On the basis of impersonality = non-existence?
On the basis of lack of reliable evidence that any experience of
anything resembling the divine is due to more than what's inside one's
own head, or is due, in other words, to something really divine.
>
> An atheist (of the no gods exist because his
argumentum-ad-ignorantium-says-so
> school of thought) would be more intellectually honest only if he,
consistent
> with his mode of thinking that the absence of personally interactive
gods
> proves that all gods-in-general don't exist, requires all things said
to
> "exist" to possess a personality! In this way, "strong" atheism seems
to be
> very mystical, if not animistic, eh?
I would be very interested to learn what your definition of
god/gods/divinity/the divine/etc. is.
>
> --or even to conclude that, if there is one,
> >you don't need it to fulfill your life--than to go on a quest for
> >"knowledge" that is evidently (for that person) unnecessary?
>
> Weak atheism as mere agnostic irreligiousity, yes.
If you delete the prejudicial "mere," perhaps that could be one
definition of a kind of atheism. Is there supposed to be something
earth-shattering about this revelation? Do you want to restrict the term
"atheism" to mean something identical to some pure form? Do you mind a
little breathing room in your definitions?
> (Or do you
> >think it is somehow necessary for an individual to care about the god
> >problem--as necessary, for example, as it is to care about the food
> >problem?)
>
> No.
>
> >What is irrational about editing out of your repertoire of concerns
that
> >particular set of questions and calling yourself an atheist for
having
> >done so?
>
> Because it is merely a rejection of anthropomorphic, personal
interpretations
> for gods.
Don't you think a person can rationally conclude--rightly or
wrongly--that there must be something "personal" about divinity as it is
described by theists (including Buddhists and esoteric mystics) and to
give up any hope of finding reliable evidence for it, given the
unreliable tool we have--the mind--to discern it? (If the divine is not
itself conscious, then what could it be? And what use is it to us to
know what it is? What difference does it make to us whether it exists or
not, if there is nothing "locatable" about it?)
> You are not a theist, because you don't believe--or you
> >believe you don't believe, if you prefer--in gods or supernature. You
> >may be agnostic in a strict sense, in that you don't *know* any more
> >than (you believe) anyone else knows; but you are not in a state of
> >spiritual suspension, reserving judgment on questions of godliness
until
> >all the evidence is in. You've decided not to spend time or energy
> >trying to believe in god, gods, and supernature, because as far as
> >you're concerned, they don't exist, or if they do, their existence
> >doesn't matter to you. As far as you know, what others refer to as
> >"divine" or "holy" is the product of a set of individual values and
> >intellectual emphases that you're not (and don't have sufficient
> >motivation to want to be) privvy to. If you must have a label for
such a
> >spiritual stance, then what's wrong with "atheist"?
>
> Because "irreligious" or "secular" describes this belief system
better.
I suppose you could make a case that atheism is very religious, in the
sense that it can be a mode of ardent observance of principles for
living, but without god or divinity as the object of worship. You might
say that "mind" is the object of atheistic "observance," for lack of a
better term. But it isn't godly mind. It's human mind, the only kind
whose existence (an atheist might assert) we can be reasonably certain
of.
Why get so hot under the collar and self-righteous about this? Don't you
think the people who consider themselves agnostics, deists, etc., can
take care of themselves? I don't see any atheists putting guns to
anyone's head and forcing them to march under any umbrella. And anyway,
why shouldn't atheists ally with people who are asking similar questions
and getting similar answers, as long as the alliance is consensual?
> In other words, if you're not just bullshitting
> >(which, I know, you could very well be),
> I'm not.
>
> are you concluding that all
> >atheists are irrational in a way that only atheists can be
irrational?
>
> No, I am not concluding that at all. I am merely concluding that
atheists who
> advocate the "lack of belief" definition have defined themselves out
of
> existence.
So your crusade really is very narrow in focus, isn't it?
Electro
>Message-id: <7qsruj$9n7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
If I tried to argue against solipsism, if that is indeed the position you are
taking, then I would in effect be an inexplicably persistent hallucination in
your mind and it wouldn't matter how I could answer your objection. But if you
aren't a solipsist, you understand that yesterday happened -necessarily- for
both of us, and we are able to communicate with each other, and have
communicated, because of reality itself being real. This is not a faith claim,
it is an actualized fact, independent of individual interpretation.
I personally dislike the term "divine." It has an inherent superiority complex
attached to it.
>> And what of personality anyway? If naturalism and materialism are
>true,
>> "personality" is just a groovy mix of impersonal electrochemicals and
>mental
>> processes in your head. Couldn't it be entirely possible that God has
>better
>> psychedelic drugs than we do? :-)
>>
>> Seriously, if "personality" is just an effect of natural bio-chemical
>> reactions, and not some epiphenomenological thing-in-itself, then why
>must one
>> expect a god to exhibit an epiphenomenological personality?
>
>
>
>What if "personality" describes the "location" of self-consciousness--or
>even just plain consciousness, if you like--if we don't take "location"
>to mean a "specific point in space?" Does that seem like a fair
>definition? How could that not be an attribute of a god-thing? If the
>divine lacks this kind of personality, how could anyone ever claim to
>have any sense of it at all?
In the same sense that Hindus claim Atman is Brahman, Zen Buddhists claim a
Buddha nature equivalent to Tatagatha, and Christian mystics contemplate the
imageo deo. It's just "there."
>> Isn't it more intellectually honest for such a person
>> >to assume there is no god
>>
>> On the basis of impersonality = non-existence?
>
>
>
>On the basis of lack of reliable evidence that any experience of
>anything resembling the divine is due to more than what's inside one's
>own head, or is due, in other words, to something really divine.
There is a fundamental flaw here. What is "divine" that you are seeking
something that resembles it to call "God?"
>> An atheist (of the no gods exist because his
>argumentum-ad-ignorantium-says-so
>> school of thought) would be more intellectually honest only if he,
>consistent
>> with his mode of thinking that the absence of personally interactive
>gods
>> proves that all gods-in-general don't exist, requires all things said
>to "exist" to possess a personality! In this way, "strong" atheism seems
>to be
>> very mystical, if not animistic, eh?
>I would be very interested to learn what your definition of
>god/gods/divinity/the divine/etc. is.
God is reality-in-itself, epiphenomenologically "beyond" the mere physical
universe yet still within it as well.
>> --or even to conclude that, if there is one,
>> >you don't need it to fulfill your life--than to go on a quest for
>> >"knowledge" that is evidently (for that person) unnecessary?
>>
>> Weak atheism as mere agnostic irreligiousity, yes.
>
>
>
>If you delete the prejudicial "mere," perhaps that could be one
>definition of a kind of atheism. Is there supposed to be something
>earth-shattering about this revelation?
Not earth-shattering, but myth-shattering.
Do you want to restrict the term
>"atheism" to mean something identical to some pure form?
Why not? There are concrete definitions for agnostics, deists, theists,
pantheists, panentheists, henotheists, etc. I don't see the value in
transforming these nouns into adjectives and tacking them as different brands
of atheism. It destroys any sense of coherence that atheism might otherwise
have.
Do you mind a little breathing room in your definitions?
Not when the definition becomes so airy as to include lawn chairs as atheists,
or so non-specific that "agnostic" becomes an adjective to atheism to describe
"the inability to prove a negative claim."
>> (Or do you
>> >think it is somehow necessary for an individual to care about the god
>> >problem--as necessary, for example, as it is to care about the food
>> >problem?)
>>
>> No.
>>
>> >What is irrational about editing out of your repertoire of concerns
>that
>> >particular set of questions and calling yourself an atheist for
>having
>> >done so?
>>
>> Because it is merely a rejection of anthropomorphic, personal
>interpretations
>> for gods.
>Don't you think a person can rationally conclude--rightly or
>wrongly--that there must be something "personal" about divinity as it is
>described by theists (including Buddhists and esoteric mystics) and to
>give up any hope of finding reliable evidence for it, given the
>unreliable tool we have--the mind--to discern it? (If the divine is not
>itself conscious, then what could it be? And what use is it to us to
>know what it is? What difference does it make to us whether it exists or
>not, if there is nothing "locatable" about it?)
I have no problems with the non-commitance of agnosticism. I do have problems
with associating non-commitment with denial. There's a fine point to be
discerned there. If a "weak" atheist is merely an agnostic, why not call
himself an "agnostic" and not associate his non-commitment with a label that
strictly implies a committed denial?
>> You are not a theist, because you don't believe--or you
>> >believe you don't believe, if you prefer--in gods or supernature. You
>> >may be agnostic in a strict sense, in that you don't *know* any more
>> >than (you believe) anyone else knows; but you are not in a state of
>> >spiritual suspension, reserving judgment on questions of godliness
>until
>> >all the evidence is in. You've decided not to spend time or energy
>> >trying to believe in god, gods, and supernature, because as far as
>> >you're concerned, they don't exist, or if they do, their existence
>> >doesn't matter to you. As far as you know, what others refer to as
>> >"divine" or "holy" is the product of a set of individual values and
>> >intellectual emphases that you're not (and don't have sufficient
>> >motivation to want to be) privvy to. If you must have a label for
>such a
>> >spiritual stance, then what's wrong with "atheist"?
>>
>> Because "irreligious" or "secular" describes this belief system
>better.
>I suppose you could make a case that atheism is very religious, in the
>sense that it can be a mode of ardent observance of principles for
>living, but without god or divinity as the object of worship. You might
>say that "mind" is the object of atheistic "observance," for lack of a
>better term. But it isn't godly mind. It's human mind, the only kind
>whose existence (an atheist might assert) we can be reasonably certain
>of.
Then by God, be a secular agnostic if that is what you are! Don't use a term
that implies "denial of the existence of God" and expect not to face
accusations of argumentum ad ignoratium fallacies when you're asked "how do you
know God doesn't exist" and hem and haw over "God is unknowable" cop outs. It
makes you look stupid, and well, I tend to call stupid things stupid. A side
effect of the search for truth, I suppose.
As a panentheist in a newsgroup that would happily accept me as an "implicit
atheist" if I just bashed Christians and I kept my mouth shut about the sheer
stupidity of calling me an atheist on the grounds that my god is not the
Christian construction, yes, I do find it a bit ironic that "atheists" presume
to have the line on who's god is the most meaningful.
And anyway,
>why shouldn't atheists ally with people who are asking similar questions
>and getting similar answers, as long as the alliance is consensual?
>
>
>
>> In other words, if you're not just bullshitting
>> >(which, I know, you could very well be),
>> I'm not.
>>
>> are you concluding that all
>> >atheists are irrational in a way that only atheists can be
>irrational?
>>
>> No, I am not concluding that at all. I am merely concluding that
>atheists who
>> advocate the "lack of belief" definition have defined themselves out
>of
>> existence.
>So your crusade really is very narrow in focus, isn't it?
Narrow in the scope that I came here to talk to atheists, and I haven't found
any yet.
John A. De Goes
Ok, so we come up to the haunted house, and I say, 'Ace, tell me something
useful.' And you reply with 'I am a weak a(ghost)ist.' So
1. you lack belief in the existence of ghosts.
2. you lack belief in the nonexistence of ghosts.
DE GOES
This is an excellent point that is seldom brought up.
A weak atheist is just as much a weak theist as he or she is a weak atheist,
yet this aspect of weak atheism is rarely discussed.
--
John A. De Goes
* View artificial life on your computer with free software from
http://pages.prodigy.net/jdegoes/bugsss.html.
* Less than a nickel of every health care dollar is spent on medical research.
Visit http://www.researchamerica.org to learn what you can do.
John A. De Goes
Apparently to you it is. The rest of us on planet earth find that a persons
beliefs, or lack of beliefs, do have relevance to both the person, and to
others, in understanding something about the person.
DE GOES
No, I do not.
Please avoid speaking for the occupants of planet earth in the future.
Dr Sinister
<7qvlm1$2ejq$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>:
[snip]
>A weak atheist is just as much a weak theist as he or she is a weak
>atheist, yet this aspect of weak atheism is rarely discussed.
You mean a non-strong weak atheist, the most popular kind. But yes, the
point is rarely discussed. It becomes rather embarassing for the
nonstrong weak atheist. He points to activities which somehow are to be
construed as evidence for his (1) lack of belief in existence of gods.
But he must also point to evidence for his (2) lack of belief in the
nonexistence of gods, if we are to accept his nonstrong weak atheism
claim.
I suppose revocation of his American Atheists Memebership is evidence of
(2). So is de-subscribing to alt.atheism.
xo...@my-deja.com
elect...@aol.comunplonkt (Electro ) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
> >From: xo...@my-deja.com
> >Message-id: <7qsruj$9n7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
[snip]
> >> Is there any knowledge that isn't fundamentally taken on
> >> >faith?
> >>
> >> Experiential knowledge. I am fully aware that yesterday happened.
> >
> >
> >
> >So you say. I'm even less certain your yesterday happened as you
think
> >it did than I am that my yesterday happened as I think it did.
>
> If I tried to argue against solipsism, if that is indeed the position
you are
> taking, then I would in effect be an inexplicably persistent
hallucination in
> your mind and it wouldn't matter how I could answer your objection.
But if you
> aren't a solipsist, you understand that yesterday happened
-necessarily- for
> both of us, and we are able to communicate with each other, and have
> communicated, because of reality itself being real. This is not a
faith claim,
> it is an actualized fact, independent of individual interpretation.
If you want to understand something about the world, you have to have
faith that your mind is adequate to the task. My grandmother had what is
now called Alzheimer's disease but which was once called senile
dementia. If what she said was a reliable clue to what she thought, for
about ten years at the end of her life, "yesterday" did not exist for
her because "one minute ago" did not exist for her. The Alzheimer's
mind, or the schizophrenic mind, are extreme examples of how imperfect
and compromised this tool can be. How can anyone be sure that their own
mind isn't compromised in some way that interferes with understanding? I
don't think you can be sure. I think you have to take it on faith that
understanding is worth pursuing because it's possible to attain, given
what we have to perceive it.
[snip]
> >> How do you make the leap from "no personal gods" to "no gods at
all?"
> > Why do
> >> gods have to be personal? Are atheists so brainwashed as to think
gods
> >have to
> >> corrollate to the Judeo-Christian model?
>
> >Can you give me an example of a god-concept that is not personal, ie
> >rational (at least partly) and self-conscious? What are mystics
trying
> >to have a direct experience of if not evidence of a divine
> >consciousness? Can divine consciousness be unself-conscious? If so,
> >what's so divine about it?
>
> I personally dislike the term "divine." It has an inherent superiority
complex
> attached to it.
Well, pick a word more to your liking (godly? numinous? spiritual?
supernatural?) and please try to answer the question: Can you give me an
example of a god-concept that is not personal, ie rational (at least
partly) and self-conscious? If none of these words apply, then what does
this discussion have to do with religious belief?
[snip]
> >What if "personality" describes the "location" of
self-consciousness--or
> >even just plain consciousness, if you like--if we don't take
"location"
> >to mean a "specific point in space?" Does that seem like a fair
> >definition? How could that not be an attribute of a god-thing? If the
> >divine lacks this kind of personality, how could anyone ever claim to
> >have any sense of it at all?
>
> In the same sense that Hindus claim Atman is Brahman, Zen Buddhists
claim a
> Buddha nature equivalent to Tatagatha, and Christian mystics
contemplate the
> imageo deo. It's just "there."
So you "locate" god inside the individual mind and don't distinguish it
from individual mind, is that right? How do you *know* it is really
there, really a quality unto its own, and not just a part of your mind?
How do you know, when you think you're in *its* presence, that you're
in the presence of something more than (or different in some way from)
just your own mind? Is it possible that you're confusing your own being
for something "higher" or "other" in some way? If it isn't higher or
other, why distinguish it as something religious, godly, transcendent or
what have you?
> >> Isn't it more intellectually honest for such a person
> >> >to assume there is no god
> >>
> >> On the basis of impersonality = non-existence?
> >
> >
> >
> >On the basis of lack of reliable evidence that any experience of
> >anything resembling the divine is due to more than what's inside
one's
> >own head, or is due, in other words, to something really divine.
>
> There is a fundamental flaw here. What is "divine" that you are
seeking
> something that resembles it to call "God?"
>
Could you please rephrase this question. I don't understand it at all.
[snip]
> >I would be very interested to learn what your definition of
> >god/gods/divinity/the divine/etc. is.
>
> God is reality-in-itself, epiphenomenologically "beyond" the mere
physical
> universe yet still within it as well.
Are you sure you know what "epiphenomenologically" means? Doesn't this
term come from a (materialist) way of thinking about the mind and
consciousness as products of brain chemistry? How does epiphenomenalism
help support your belief in a reality beyond-yet-within "mere" physical
reality, whatever that means?
[snip]
I think it may be too fine a point, or not fine enough of one. An
agnostic, as I understand it, is someone who suspends judgment. An
atheist is someone who has decided believing is not worthwhile. There is
a real difference between the two positions, from my view, and the
distinction is worth preserving in language. To answer your question, a
weak atheist is not necessarily an agnostic, because a weak atheist,
has decided that the god question is unanswerable and therefore not
worth trying to answer, whereas the agnostic takes the position that
there may or may not be an answer. See the difference in level of
commitment?
This sounds a lot like a strawman you're arguing against. Let's say I
call myself an atheist. I don't actually know if that's what I am, but
for the sake of argument, let's say I call my position--"god is
irrelevant to and unnecessary in the search for truth"--an atheist
position, because, I could say, it denies the centrality of god to
philosophy. I am not asserting that there is no god; I am saying that
there may as well not be one because as far as I can tell, it doesn't
make a difference either way and is entirely irrelevant to discerning
right conduct and all those other paths to wisdom you Buddhists are
supposed to believe in. (Incidentally, is it a myth that some Buddhists
are atheist?)
If you want to call this position of mine "secular agnostic," go ahead!
If you want to think it's rooted in an argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacy,
go ahead! I think you may be caught in a language and logic trap that
has sidetracked you from your "search for truth" by leading you down a
dead end after a very minor point about the definition of terms. You
don't seem genuinely interested in why one calls oneself an atheist
rather than an agnostic. You've already made the judgment! If it makes
you happy, go ahead!
[snip]
> As a panentheist in a newsgroup that would happily accept me as an
"implicit
> atheist" if I just bashed Christians and I kept my mouth shut about
the sheer
> stupidity of calling me an atheist on the grounds that my god is not
the
> Christian construction, yes, I do find it a bit ironic that "atheists"
presume
> to have the line on who's god is the most meaningful.
Incidentally, you haven't given any compelling reason why anyone should
believe your point of view isn't a form of atheism that is either
confused, lacking in courage, or masquerading as theistic because you
value theistic positions for some reason. Why are you drawn to seeing
what atheists think, anyway?
Electro
>Message-id: <7r4v55$rkb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
You are overlooking a central theme I have presented. You CAN'T be sure your
mind isn't being compromised in a way that interferes with understanding, but
you can be sure that your perceptions (perspective) are compromising that
understanding that never, ever, gives you
"the full picture" of something-in-itself. If you could describe something
completely, it would add nothing to that description to say "it exists." But,
if you take "existence" from the thing you are describing, you are never going
to be able describe it at all. (it is impossible to describe non-existent
"things") This leads us to realize the extent of our perceptions alone can
never make a "thing" exist, even breaking it into its constituent parts ad
infinitum will never reveal what makes it "exist." So, does the "thing" exist,
or not?
>[snip]
>
>
>> >> How do you make the leap from "no personal gods" to "no gods at
>all?"
>> > Why do
>> >> gods have to be personal? Are atheists so brainwashed as to think
>gods
>> >have to
>> >> corrollate to the Judeo-Christian model?
>>
>> >Can you give me an example of a god-concept that is not personal, ie
>> >rational (at least partly) and self-conscious? What are mystics
>trying
>> >to have a direct experience of if not evidence of a divine
>> >consciousness? Can divine consciousness be unself-conscious? If so,
>> >what's so divine about it?
>>
>> I personally dislike the term "divine." It has an inherent superiority
>complex
>> attached to it.
>
>Well, pick a word more to your liking (godly? numinous? spiritual?
>supernatural?) and please try to answer the question: Can you give me an
>example of a god-concept that is not personal, ie rational (at least
>partly) and self-conscious?
Remove, as mystics seek to do, the strictly mental distinction between "self"
and "world." Become selfless in your awareness (I seek this in meditation) That
which is there, the unitive knowledge found when this conditioned fetter of
samsara is unlocked, is what I am speaking about when I say God is
reality-itself, existence, independent of conditioned mental framework
distinctions and "I-Thou" theological relationships. God, without me, could not
exist, and vice versa. It is a unifying realization of "the ways things are."
If none of these words apply, then what does
>this discussion have to do with religious belief?
We are discussing theistic belief, not religious belief.
>[snip]
>
>
>> >What if "personality" describes the "location" of
>self-consciousness--or
>> >even just plain consciousness, if you like--if we don't take
>"location"
>> >to mean a "specific point in space?" Does that seem like a fair
>> >definition? How could that not be an attribute of a god-thing? If the
>> >divine lacks this kind of personality, how could anyone ever claim to
>> >have any sense of it at all?
>>
>> In the same sense that Hindus claim Atman is Brahman, Zen Buddhists
>claim a
>> Buddha nature equivalent to Tatagatha, and Christian mystics
>contemplate the
>> imageo deo. It's just "there."
>
>
>
>So you "locate" god inside the individual mind and don't distinguish it
>from individual mind, is that right? How do you *know* it is really
>there, really a quality unto its own, and not just a part of your mind?
> How do you know, when you think you're in *its* presence, that you're
>in the presence of something more than (or different in some way from)
>just your own mind? Is it possible that you're confusing your own being
>for something "higher" or "other" in some way? If it isn't higher or
>other, why distinguish it as something religious, godly, transcendent or
>what have you?
"Self" is an illusion, a mental trick. Only reality exists.
>> >> Isn't it more intellectually honest for such a person
>> >> >to assume there is no god
>> >>
>> >> On the basis of impersonality = non-existence?
>> >
>> >On the basis of lack of reliable evidence that any experience of
>> >anything resembling the divine is due to more than what's inside
>one's
>> >own head, or is due, in other words, to something really divine.
>>
>> There is a fundamental flaw here. What is "divine" that you are
>seeking
>> something that resembles it to call "God?"
>>
>Could you please rephrase this question. I don't understand it at all.
It's that age-old question, rephrased - "Which came first, the God or the
theist?"
When you seek "divinity" where do you look? What is "divine?" In what way,
should you in your journeys happen upon a god, look upon said god and say "hey!
This god is 'divine' because... (a pre-perceived or pre-experienced "thing" in
your mind's store of knowledge fits the description "divine")"
This is what I don't like about the concept of using the word "divine." It
seems to apply to an abstract "more than reality." You can create the idea of
"divinity" in your head, true, but if you can't apply the concept to something
real, you're fooling yourself. This foolishness affects both the theist and the
atheist who claim gods are not in reality but outside it.
A pantheist says God is in reality with us, thus in this sense the universe is
"divine." A panentheist says God is reality itself and therefore "divine" could
refer only to the concept of existence, and from a selfless-based perspective /
lack of distinction between "self" and "world," we are united with "it" (That
which is "divine")
>[snip]
>
>
>> >I would be very interested to learn what your definition of
>> >god/gods/divinity/the divine/etc. is.
>>
>> God is reality-in-itself, epiphenomenologically "beyond" the mere
>physical
>> universe yet still within it as well.
>
>
>
>Are you sure you know what "epiphenomenologically" means? Doesn't this
>term come from a (materialist) way of thinking about the mind and
>consciousness as products of brain chemistry?
Not a strict materialist view, though influenced by it. It is a dualistic
epistemology, combining both materialism and idealism.
How does epiphenomenalism
>help support your belief in a reality beyond-yet-within "mere" physical
>reality, whatever that means?
Epiphenomenalism is a dualistic thought, one that attempts to accept that the
physical phenomena of the body's construction and interactions as the "source"
of the "epiphenomenal" conscience. If such distinctions between "mind" and
"body" (or "self" and "universe") are merely by-products of understanding
compromised -already- by our limited perceptions, removing such limits unites
us with "God's eye view" so to speak. This is what I seek, that which the
agnostic says is impossible, and the panentheist says is obvious.
Only in the fact that one is a commitment (atheism) and one is not
(agnosticism).
Some are. Most aren't.
>If you want to call this position of mine "secular agnostic," go ahead!
Depends on if you claim "weak" atheism.
>If you want to think it's rooted in an argumentum ad ignoratiam fallacy,
>go ahead!
That would be a claim to "strong" atheism.
I think you may be caught in a language and logic trap that
>has sidetracked you from your "search for truth" by leading you down a
>dead end after a very minor point about the definition of terms.
It's always good to know what someone thinks, regardless of it's relevance to
reality.
You
>don't seem genuinely interested in why one calls oneself an atheist
>rather than an agnostic.
Believe me, I'm interested. Hence, the "aatheism" posts.
You've already made the judgment! If it makes
>you happy, go ahead!
Turning the other cheek a bit, ain't ya?
>[snip]
>
>> As a panentheist in a newsgroup that would happily accept me as an
>"implicit
>> atheist" if I just bashed Christians and I kept my mouth shut about
>the sheer
>> stupidity of calling me an atheist on the grounds that my god is not
>the
>> Christian construction, yes, I do find it a bit ironic that "atheists"
>presume
>> to have the line on who's god is the most meaningful.
>Incidentally, you haven't given any compelling reason why anyone should
>believe your point of view isn't a form of atheism that is either
>confused, lacking in courage, or masquerading as theistic because you
>value theistic positions for some reason. Why are you drawn to seeing
>what atheists think, anyway?
What atheists?
xo...@my-deja.com
elect...@aol.comunplonkt (Electro ) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
> >From: xo...@my-deja.com
> >Date: Wed, 08 September 1999 02:19 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <7r4v55$rkb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >In article <19990905074306...@ng-fu1.aol.com>,
> > elect...@aol.comunplonkt (Electro ) wrote:
> >> >Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
> >> >From: xo...@my-deja.com
> >> >Date: Sun, 05 September 1999 12:35 AM EDT
> >> >Message-id: <7qsruj$9n7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >[snip]
> >If you want to understand something about the world, you have to have
We (individuals) can't know everything about anything, I agree.
>If you could describe
something
> completely, it would add nothing to that description to say "it
exists." But,
> if you take "existence" from the thing you are describing, you are
never going
> to be able describe it at all. (it is impossible to describe
non-existent
> "things")
If I understand you correctly, your position is that if something can be
described, it exists? Or is it that whatever does not exist cannot be
described? I disagree with the first assertion, because I know people
can describe unicorns and munchkins, for example, and I seriously doubt
either one really exists except in imagination. Perhaps you are
asserting that existence in imagination is "real" existence of a kind.
But it seems as though you want to go further than that by asserting
that the imaginative existence of an entity is as real as another's
physical existence, that the "reality" of Peter Pan equals the "reality"
of James Barrie. I don't want to willfully misunderstand or misrepresent
you, but is this what you're asserting?
>This leads us to realize the extent of our perceptions alone
can
> never make a "thing" exist, even breaking it into its constituent
parts ad
> infinitum will never reveal what makes it "exist." So, does the
"thing" exist,
> or not?
If a schizophrenic perceives that his dogs talk to him in grammatical
English, do English-speaking dogs exist? I'm somewhat confident, given a
piece of what you say above, that you'd agree with me that they probably
do not, that the schizophrenic is most likely mistaken. Or do you argue
that because the schizophrenic perceives it, the phenomenon of talking
dogs must be somehow real? I would assume, since you accept
epiphenomenalism, that you do not believe the mere perception of the
dogs causes them to exist. Rather, you probably believe that what is
causing the dogs to seem to exist are the divisible components of
talking-dogness (talking and dogness, to name two) which really do exist
outside of the schizophrenic's head and which the schizophrenic has
somehow imaginatively conflated.
You might think it's an irrelevant and unnecessary distraction to talk
about whether or not, or just how well, a schizophrenic's perceptions
reflect "reality." I'm hoping that you don't because if you do, we're
talking at cross purposes. I'm trying to understand the standards you're
using to determine what is "real."
You know, I did this once and almost wound up having a nervous
breakdown. I'm not kidding. I once had a mystical revelation that "there
is no such thing as 'other.'" I came to see that although this
revelation identified me with the universe for all eternity, it did jack
shit to help me solve the food problem.
> Become selfless in your awareness (I seek this in
meditation) That
> which is there, the unitive knowledge found when this conditioned
fetter of
> samsara is unlocked, is what I am speaking about when I say God is
> reality-itself, existence, independent of conditioned mental framework
> distinctions and "I-Thou" theological relationships. God, without me,
could not
> exist, and vice versa. It is a unifying realization of "the ways
things are."
"God, without me, could not exist, and vice versa." That sounds like
solipsism to me, especially when you equate God and reality-itself. I
know it must not be, somehow. You must not mean the same thing I would
mean when you say "I" and "me," because if you did, you would be careful
not to imply that God=Reality, who did-not-because-could-not exist
before the "birthday" of the "person" (for lack of a better term) whom
"your" "parents" "parented," has existed ever since. This "me" you're
talking about must be some eternal essence, identical to God's, that
only appears to have been assigned to your body and epiphenomenal
consciousness for this time. Is that right?
Who's tricking whom and why? How do you know it's a trick? Sorry: How do
"you" know it's a trick?
[To Be Continued....]
xo...@my-deja.com
[Continued from 9/8/99]
In article <19990908060755...@ng-cf1.aol.com>,
elect...@aol.comunplonkt (Electro ) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Introduction to Aatheism
> >From: xo...@my-deja.com
> >Date: Wed, 08 September 1999 02:19 AM EDT
> >Message-id: <7r4v55$rkb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >[snip]
> >> >> Isn't it more intellectually honest for such a person
> >> >> >to assume there is no god
> >> >>
> >> >> On the basis of impersonality = non-existence?
> >> >
> >> >On the basis of lack of reliable evidence that any experience of
> >> >anything resembling the divine is due to more than what's inside
> >one's
> >> >own head, or is due, in other words, to something really divine.
> >>
> >> There is a fundamental flaw here. What is "divine" that you are
> >seeking
> >> something that resembles it to call "God?"
> >>
> >Could you please rephrase this question. I don't understand it at
all.
>
> It's that age-old question, rephrased - "Which came first, the God or
the
> theist?"
A theist would say, "God, undoubtedly." An agnostic would say, "I don't
know." An atheist of any kind would say "The theist, because whether or
not there 'really' is a god, it did not exist for humans until the human
mind conceived of it, probably to personalize (or explain, if you
prefer) perceived but mysterious powers of nature."
If you're a reliable indicator, a panentheist, I guess, would say, "They
came simultaneously"? That would not be inconsistent with atheist
belief, since God and theist, on this view, were probably "born" the
instant a human first thought of God and believed in it. But I have a
feeling you would mean something more mystical.
> When you seek "divinity" where do you look? What is "divine?" In what
way,
> should you in your journeys happen upon a god, look upon said god and
say "hey!
> This god is 'divine' because... (a pre-perceived or pre-experienced
"thing" in
> your mind's store of knowledge fits the description "divine")"
>
> This is what I don't like about the concept of using the word
"divine." It
> seems to apply to an abstract "more than reality." You can create the
idea of
> "divinity" in your head, true, but if you can't apply the concept to
something
> real, you're fooling yourself.
When you say "divinity," you seem to mean "a presumed absolutely real
quality that either really does or really does not exist"--which is what
you seem to mean when you say a lot of things. When I use the term, I
mean "a quality ascribed to 'God' to distinguish it from humanity,
animality, corporeality, etc." This allows me a starting point from
which to talk about and think about divinity as something distinct and
discussable, even if I don't believe there really is such a quality as
divinity except in human imagination. You on the other hand seem to be
working very hard at alienating yourself from discourse about anything
by insisting that everyone's language construct an exact conceptual
replica of what you believe is real--and *only* what *you* believe is
real.
> This foolishness affects both the theist and the
> atheist who claim gods are not in reality but outside it.
>
> A pantheist says God is in reality with us, thus in this sense the
universe is
> "divine." A panentheist says God is reality itself and therefore
"divine" could
> refer only to the concept of existence, and from a selfless-based
perspective /
> lack of distinction between "self" and "world," we are united with
"it" (That
> which is "divine")
If there is no distinction between self and world, why does this
distinction appear (usually) to exist? (Or have "you" managed to erase
this distinction "permanently"? And if so, why aren't you on a mountain
top somewhere? Why bother discussing anything with the "idiots," as you
so Buddhistically call them, who haven't been blessed with "your"
knowledge? Compassion, I suppose?) Where did you get the idea that this
thing you're united with is god, when the vast majority of people you
share this information with don't understand what you mean when you say
"god"? Why not assume it's something else and give it another name? How
do you know you're united with it if it's perfectly identical to you?
How do you perceive it? How do you know you're not mistaking you for it
if it isn't "other" in some way? What makes this position different from
narcissism?
> >[snip]
> >
> >
> >> >I would be very interested to learn what your definition of
> >> >god/gods/divinity/the divine/etc. is.
> >>
> >> God is reality-in-itself, epiphenomenologically "beyond" the mere
> >physical
> >> universe yet still within it as well.
> >
> >
> >
> >Are you sure you know what "epiphenomenologically" means? Doesn't
this
> >term come from a (materialist) way of thinking about the mind and
> >consciousness as products of brain chemistry?
>
> Not a strict materialist view, though influenced by it. It is a
dualistic
> epistemology, combining both materialism and idealism.
>
> How does epiphenomenalism
> >help support your belief in a reality beyond-yet-within "mere"
physical
> >reality, whatever that means?
>
> Epiphenomenalism is a dualistic thought, one that attempts to accept
that the
> physical phenomena of the body's construction and interactions as the
"source"
> of the "epiphenomenal" conscience.
You mean "consciousness," right? (Just to be clear.)
> If such distinctions between "mind" and
> "body" (or "self" and "universe") are merely by-products of
understanding
> compromised -already- by our limited perceptions, removing such limits
unites
> us with "God's eye view" so to speak. This is what I seek, that which
the
> agnostic says is impossible, and the panentheist says is obvious.
I have to say that you're not making much sense here. You seem to accept
the notion that your ability-to-conceive-of-"mind" (otherwise known as
"mind" or "consciousness") is a by-product of physical and biological
processes and that, in being epiphenomenal and local, it a priori
compromises "understanding." Yet you somehow make a leap of faith to
conclude that this compromised, local, epiphenomenal instrument has the
power to tear through the limits of understanding and see with God's
eye. Perhaps you don't use your mind to arrive at this understanding?
Perhaps you use another more precise instrument? Or do you believe that
you somehow tap into some other unlocal, uncompromised mind to arrive at
this understanding?
I am unashamedly agnostic about epiphenomenalism, by the way.
[snip]
And you think that difference is not fine enough to make a linguistic
distinction between "(weak) atheist" and "agnostic?" Clearly most people
who know what weak atheism is make that distinction, whether you like it
or not. Doesn't that give them a touch more precision when talking on
this subject than you're capable of? (Not that you should change your
thinking habits based on definitions used by the majority of speakers on
this subject. That would be an argumentum ad populum, wouldn't it?)
That's about all I have to say about your post of Sept. 8. I would like
to add, however, that for some reason, I'm concerned about you. I think
your posts are evidence of someone who is terribly confused without
apparently knowing it and who has somehow managed to trap himself (I
assume you're male--pardon me if I'm wrong) into defending a position
not worth defending. I would expect you to be (understandably)
suspicious or even contemptuous of this concern of an ostensible
"opponent," but you'll just have to take it on faith that I'm sincere,
though aware that my concern may be unwarranted, unwanted, or misplaced.
I wouldn't be concerned if you didn't project some evidence of
considerable intelligence and sensitivity in your communications.
So why am I concerned? You say you are a Buddhist, yet I don't think a
conscientious Buddhist would get so wrapped up in arguing with people to
the point of flat-out denying the "intelligence" and "rationality" of
their beliefs. I think a more Buddhist approach would be to let go of
whatever is causing you to be vexed and find the middle way between the
oppositions. Granted, I know, just "being" a Buddhist does not guarantee
vexationlessness or serenity. But isn't it considered a "process?"
Aren't you supposed to strive *toward* enlightenment, assuming you
aren't there until you "know" you are there--that is, if you ever get
there, which is far from guaranteed? Isn't Buddha consciousness assumed
by Buddhists to be extremely rare and precious? You don't really believe
you've attained it, do you? Because from my perspective, I feel a lot of
heat but I don't see a lot of enlightenment radiating from your
posts--and I don't mean that as a put-down, just as a reality
checkpoint.
If I were you, I would take a giant step back from this position you've
gotten yourself into, wipe the slate clean, and try to decide whether
it's really worth pursuing your point. Is anyone really going to learn
from it? Are you motivated purely by a need for truth and enlightenment
or by something else? Do you get pleasure from this crusade?
I have learned something and derived some pleasure from this dialogue.
But what I've learned while thinking about your position is not what you
may have intended to teach.
Electro
>Message-id: <7r969d$e8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
I have no answer for the question, really.
Simultaneous seems reasonable.
No, not at all. I want to remove subjectivity from a discussion of the
objective reality of God, or at least as much as possible to seek a common
ground. I have a common ground with theists in that I believe in God. I have
common ground with atheists in that I don't believe God is the wonder-dude of
the Bible.
>
>
>> This foolishness affects both the theist and the
>> atheist who claim gods are not in reality but outside it.
>>
>> A pantheist says God is in reality with us, thus in this sense the
>universe is
>> "divine." A panentheist says God is reality itself and therefore
>"divine" could
>> refer only to the concept of existence, and from a selfless-based
>perspective /
>> lack of distinction between "self" and "world," we are united with
>"it" (That
>> which is "divine")
>
>
>If there is no distinction between self and world, why does this
>distinction appear (usually) to exist?
It is a purely mental distinction.
(Or have "you" managed to erase
>this distinction "permanently"?
No, I recognize its purely mental origin. I set this naturally occuring view
aside as a distraction when I meditate.
>And if so, why aren't you on a mountaintop somewhere?
"The only Zen on a mountaintop is the Zen you take up there with you." - R.
Pirsig
Why bother discussing anything with the "idiots," as you
>so Buddhistically call them, who haven't been blessed with "your"
>knowledge?
Why not?
Compassion, I suppose?
Or for review.
) Where did you get the idea that this
>thing you're united with is god, when the vast majority of people you
>share this information with don't understand what you mean when you say
>"god"?
In a sense I am "redefining" God, but in another, I'm returning the definition
to its rightful place.
Why not assume it's something else and give it another name?
Because I'm not an atheist.
>How do you know you're united with it if it's perfectly identical to you?
Because I know when I'm not united with it, by the discord and suffering that
arises in my life as a result.
>How do you perceive it?
Meditation.
How do you know you're not mistaking you for it if it isn't "other" in some
way?
It isn't "other." It is reality-itself. The true, ultimate reality. That which
is hidden from us by subjective perception.
What makes this position different from
>narcissism?
The state of selflessness is not a narcissistic state.
>
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >
>> >> >I would be very interested to learn what your definition of
>> >> >god/gods/divinity/the divine/etc. is.
>> >>
>> >> God is reality-in-itself, epiphenomenologically "beyond" the mere
>> >physical
>> >> universe yet still within it as well.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Are you sure you know what "epiphenomenologically" means? Doesn't
>this
>> >term come from a (materialist) way of thinking about the mind and
>> >consciousness as products of brain chemistry?
>>
>> Not a strict materialist view, though influenced by it. It is a
>dualistic
>> epistemology, combining both materialism and idealism.
>>
>> How does epiphenomenalism
>> >help support your belief in a reality beyond-yet-within "mere"
>physical
>> >reality, whatever that means?
>>
>> Epiphenomenalism is a dualistic thought, one that attempts to accept
>that the
>> physical phenomena of the body's construction and interactions as the
>"source"
>> of the "epiphenomenal" conscience.
>
>
>You mean "consciousness," right? (Just to be clear.)
Yes. Damn typos.
>>> If such distinctions between "mind" and
>> "body" (or "self" and "universe") are merely by-products of
>understanding
>> compromised -already- by our limited perceptions, removing such limits
>unites
>> us with "God's eye view" so to speak. This is what I seek, that which
>the
>> agnostic says is impossible, and the panentheist says is obvious.
>
>
>
>I have to say that you're not making much sense here. You seem to accept
>the notion that your ability-to-conceive-of-"mind" (otherwise known as
>"mind" or "consciousness") is a by-product of physical and biological
>processes and that, in being epiphenomenal and local, it a priori
>compromises "understanding." Yet you somehow make a leap of faith to
>conclude that this compromised, local, epiphenomenal instrument has the
>power to tear through the limits of understanding and see with God's
>eye.
That's the idea, yes. Haven't acheived it in a way that I can meaningfully
express, but I know I've experienced in meditation things that infer its
possibility.
Perhaps you don't use your mind to arrive at this understanding?
I try not to.
>Perhaps you use another more precise instrument?
:)
Or do you believe that
>you somehow tap into some other unlocal, uncompromised mind to arrive at
>this understanding?
The Buddha nature.
>I am unashamedly agnostic about epiphenomenalism, by the way.
Heh.
Yes. Especially when it seems the "atheism" label deals specifically with that
which the "atheist" deems "divine" enough to not believe in, with other
theistic concepts not readily understood dismissed out-of-hand, with an
argumentum ad populum of a different kind, that appeal to only discuss
Judeo-Christian concepts when refering to the big-G God.
>That's about all I have to say about your post of Sept. 8. I would like
>to add, however, that for some reason, I'm concerned about you.
I aprreciate the sentiment.
I think
>your posts are evidence of someone who is terribly confused without
>apparently knowing it and who has somehow managed to trap himself (I
>assume you're male--pardon me if I'm wrong) into defending a position
>not worth defending. I would expect you to be (understandably)
>suspicious or even contemptuous of this concern of an ostensible
>"opponent," but you'll just have to take it on faith that I'm sincere,
>though aware that my concern may be unwarranted, unwanted, or misplaced.
I used to fear insanity until I discovered it was the same thing as innocence.
>I wouldn't be concerned if you didn't project some evidence of
>considerable intelligence and sensitivity in your communications.
>
>So why am I concerned? You say you are a Buddhist, yet I don't think a
>conscientious Buddhist would get so wrapped up in arguing with people to
>the point of flat-out denying the "intelligence" and "rationality" of
>their beliefs.
Sometimes I don't make it clear when I'm making serious conversation, or
satirizing a piece of ridiculousness for every mile I can get out of it.
I think a more Buddhist approach would be to let go of
>whatever is causing you to be vexed and find the middle way between the
>oppositions.
Perhaps. I'll let you know when I am vexed.
Granted, I know, just "being" a Buddhist does not guarantee
>vexationlessness or serenity. But isn't it considered a "process?"
>Aren't you supposed to strive *toward* enlightenment, assuming you
>aren't there until you "know" you are there--that is, if you ever get
>there, which is far from guaranteed?
Yes.
Isn't Buddha consciousness assumed
>by Buddhists to be extremely rare and precious?
And as common as horse dung too.
You don't really believe
>you've attained it, do you?
I think I am closer than I was yesterday.
Because from my perspective, I feel a lot of
>heat but I don't see a lot of enlightenment radiating from your
>posts--and I don't mean that as a put-down, just as a reality
>checkpoint.
Thanks. Madness takes its toll, please have exact change.
>If I were you, I would take a giant step back from this position you've
>gotten yourself into, wipe the slate clean, and try to decide whether
>it's really worth pursuing your point. Is anyone really going to learn
>from it?
I'm just exchanging ideas here. Your mileage may vary.
Are you motivated purely by a need for truth and enlightenment
>or by something else?
Both, and the thrill of conversation.
Do you get pleasure from this crusade?
Crusade? I have never stolen gold for the Catholic Church. :-)
>I have learned something and derived some pleasure from this dialogue.
>But what I've learned while thinking about your position is not what you
>may have intended to teach.
Or perhaps it was. :-)