Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

atheism is religion

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Death

unread,
Oct 28, 2007, 10:56:52 PM10/28/07
to
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Š 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start
was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a
supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because
the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association
Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in
Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said
Fahling.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the
existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the
court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of
Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they
take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and
turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system,
that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion,
while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith
to be prohibited," Fahling said.

juanjo

unread,
Oct 28, 2007, 11:25:21 PM10/28/07
to
On Oct 28, 7:56 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> Posted: August 20, 2005
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Just another example of the World NUT Daily taking words out of
context and misterpreting what was actually said. BTW there is no
ruling in any Supreme Court case that secular humanism is a religion.
That is religious wing nuts taking words in a footnote out of context
and twsting them into something they are not.

Death

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 8:21:15 AM10/29/07
to

"juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

Just another example of the World NUT Daily taking words out of
context and misterpreting what was actually said. BTW there is no
ruling in any Supreme Court case that secular humanism is a religion.
That is religious wing nuts taking words in a footnote out of context
and twsting them into something they are not.

````````````
I refer you to Washington Ethical Society vs District of Columbia
(101 US App. DC 371) 1957


dank

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 4:01:13 PM10/29/07
to
Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
> Posted: August 20, 2005
> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

>
> A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
> violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
> religion.
>
> "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start
> was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a
> supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
>
> The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because
> the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>
> Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association
> Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in
> Wonderland jurisprudence."
>
> "Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said
> Fahling.

The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
the existence of gods. Agnosticism is scientific in that it admits
that science can't prove or disprove the existence of gods and leaves
it as an open question that might be solved with future science.

I solve the problem by practicing Satanism which allows me to believe
anything I want to, and the central tenet of LaVey/Manson brand of
Satanism is the complete and utter destruction of xianity and all
religious beLIEf systems. The problem with atheism is that it is
considered a non-belief and therefore denied the right to co-exist in
the public arena, like in the lawsuit above. Satanism is recognized
as an unpopular but constitutionally protected religion, so in theory
it should be possible to demand the right of prisoners or school
students to form Satanic study groups, equal time for Satanic prayers
before congressional sessions (such as afforded to the unpopular cult
of izlam), or equal access to "faith-based" federal funding for
charitable activities.

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 4:27:09 PM10/29/07
to

"dank" <da...@nugget.org> wrote in message
news:d_qVi.61355$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...

> Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
>> Posted: August 20, 2005
>> 1:00 a.m. Eastern
>> Š 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

>>
>> A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
>> violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
>> religion.
>>
>> "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to
>> start
>> was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a
>> supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
>>
>> The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated
>> because
>> the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>>
>> Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association
>> Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in
>> Wonderland jurisprudence."
>>
>> "Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said
>> Fahling.
>
> The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
> treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> the existence of gods.

Not really. Since there exists no scientific evidence to show that God or
Gods exist, then the logical conclusion is that no God or Gods exist.

It's quite scientific.

Ghod

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 4:42:33 PM10/29/07
to
"dank" <da...@nugget.org> wrote in message
news:d_qVi.61355$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
: Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
: > Posted: August 20, 2005
: > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
: > Š 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Pull the other one, it has got bells on it.

: I solve the problem by practicing Satanism which allows me to


believe
: anything I want to, and the central tenet of LaVey/Manson brand of
: Satanism is the complete and utter destruction of xianity and all
: religious beLIEf systems. The problem with atheism is that it is
: considered a non-belief and therefore denied the right to co-exist
in
: the public arena, like in the lawsuit above. Satanism is recognized
: as an unpopular but constitutionally protected religion, so in
theory
: it should be possible to demand the right of prisoners or school
: students to form Satanic study groups, equal time for Satanic
prayers
: before congressional sessions (such as afforded to the unpopular
cult
: of izlam), or equal access to "faith-based" federal funding for
: charitable activities.

Your "solution" solves nothing, you know...and I am quite certain that
you DO know this. All you're doing here, is to attempt to start an
flame war. Pathetic.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 4:56:23 PM10/29/07
to
On Oct 29, 4:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:

> I solve the problem by practicing Satanism which allows me to believe
> anything I want to

Satanism, which is theistic, doesn't allow you to believe anything you
want to any more than Christianity does.

V

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 6:38:02 PM10/29/07
to
On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
>   Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
> > Posted: August 20, 2005
> > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> > © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> > A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
> > violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
> > religion.
>
> > "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start
>

Sure atheism is a religion.

And atheism is one of the world's least tolerant religions as well.

Without spiritual values, the atheist is sunk. The conundrum of the
mind manacled, defiance based, spiritually sick atheist is this. They
need spiritual values to be at peace - yet their own defiance blocks
them from seeking and finding these values.

The atheist that only has a foundation of ego and hate will never find
peace. If any theist questioning their faith should wonder onto
alt.atheism, for instance, they could see this for themselves with
many spiritually sick example members and their projection of this
spiritual sickness and self hate onto others.

What is missing in these atheists lives?

Do they need to get religion?

Not necessarily.

As we see, many people claiming to be religious are just as bad off as
atheists or sometimes worse.

"People that practice religion are worried about going to hell -
people that practice spirituality have already been to hell and don't
want to go back."

Spiritual values is what they are short on.

One time an atheist responded to this post saying: "Not having any
beliefs in gods means one must be mind manacled and deluded? I don't
think anyone here is naive enough to fall for your crap, but the more
interesting question is, do 'you' actually believe it?"

Well, it is not the belief or lack of belief in any gods that defines
the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick atheist. The
foundation of such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound
judgment, rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of
opinion that roots itself in egoistic pride.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=627.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0

Such atheists full of defiance and devoid of spiritual values are
'dogmatic skeptics', whereas atheists that are open to spiritual
values are of the order of 'skeptical skeptics.'

The spiritual based atheists have not forgotten 'All Deities reside
within the human breast' as Blake wrote.

There is a world of difference between the two types of atheists...a
night and day difference.

The spiritual based atheists 'deifies humanity and peace' the defiance
based atheist 'deifies their ego' and loses any connection with
humanity and becomes a haggard, shell of a human.

A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God. They do
not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts.

Until they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer
(peace) they seek.

It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing
between them and happiness.

So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of
spiritual values.

One thing only goes so far with giving a person a good life. If inner
peace was to be found in a test tube - you would have mixed up a batch
by now.

The vast majority of atheists I have come across seem to be like
animals caught in trap, squirming and writhing in every direction,
looking, grasping outside of themselves for freedom from this trap to
find a modicum of inner peace.

But the trap is an 'inner one' and all their efforts grasping outside
of themselves are futile.

Always remember, passions are rooted in the self and the self is
always is in flux which accounts for the rise and fall of these
passions.

Whereas, truth is stable - for the truth is that which does not
change.

Seek balance. Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect, but
we can all do better at being humane if we try. And as you develop
humane qualities these will support your program for inner peace.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0


There are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal
atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong
atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated
atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA
varieties.

But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is
whether they are a 'spiritual and truth based atheist' or 'defiance
ego based atheist.''

I have to laugh sometimes when I read the fantasies of atheists that
think atheism will take over the world.

It would take a different brand of atheist to persuade many to change
if they investigate the online atheists to any degree.

In short, if you wish to drop the atheist delusion you have been
carrying around for so long, you must become spiritual and truth based
atheists to offer something to the religious crowd - instead of the
defiance based, hate fueled atheists that many of you are.

And this advice goes for theists as well...throughout history, when
were tyrants ever satisfied with just one death?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4006812a06f9ddf

What is a defiance based atheist?

Let me give you an example via some discussion with Neil Kelsey

If we look at Neil Kelsey's youth he showed defiance from the start.
He knew at a young age God was repulsive without even studying
religious thought and told his parents what to do when it came to
marching orders.


Neil Kelsey: "Dragged to Sunday school 3 times, hated the songs,
thought God was repulsive, refused to go ever again."


V: Now at adulthood, Neil Kelsey carried this defiance with him and
refuses to let others think for themselves and demands all think as he
does or else. This is how ego based tyrants have ruled throughout
history...with fear and pain.


Neil Kelsey: "Theists like you (V) should be given electric shocks
every time they use parables. That is my new policy."


V: When the discussion turned to moral values and virtue I
wrote...Professor Peter Kreeft remarked on the subject of morality:
First level morality could be called survival morality - lets not hit
each other on the head so none of us will die. Second level morality
could be justice morality - lets not hit each other on the head
because it is not fair or not right. Third level morality could be
called 'transcend the ego' morality - lets not hit each other because
we love each other.


Neil Kelsey: "Professor Peter Kreeft is a Christian. This is an
atheist group. Why would you think someone who bases their morality on
the Bible and the supernatural has anything relevant to say to an
atheist? Why are you promoting Christian values? Some agnostic you
are. Some freethinker you are."


V: I did not know Professor Kreeft was a Christian. I had listened
to a lecture series from the library on the Philosophy of Religion -
Faith and Reason he authored. He gave no indication of what religion
he was. I did not need to know his religious convictions to come to a
conclusion about what he said. I look at what was said and not at who
said what Neil.


Neil Kelsey demonstrates how the mind manacled, defiance based
atheists gets blinded by prejudice and ego at every turn. Atheist are
mind manacled to what is said and are blocked from truth by their own
ego based prejudices.

Atheists say they operate on truth and not by faith. But, that could
not be further from the truth.

If we look at the 3 examples Kreeft gave, all 3 can be tested by
practical application. Even the 'transcend the ego' concept can be
tested by any freethinking atheist.

All they have to do is practice kindness and being charitable to
humanity as opposed to practicing hatred and ill will. Then they can
test this out for themselves.

But their mind manacled by chains forged in the fire of hatred and
prejudice refuses to entertain any freethought that does not have a
foundation in hatred and ill will towards mankind. You see, it is not
knowledge and peace that their atheism is based on...it is hatred.

Even if the atheist does not wish to test level three morality, level
one and two have nothing to do with spiritual values. Yet the mind
manacled, defiant atheists throws the whole lot out because they get
blinded to the discussion due to prejudice and small minded thinking.

No, Neil, a good agnostic is open to the discussion from all sides. A
proper atheists and theist would be as well.

For how could an atheists claim to serve truth, when they shut their
mind to the discussion and block out anything that their ego demands
them to.

I guess in your mind a good atheists is a yes man that runs by herd
instinct and nothing else. No judging truth on it own, truth is
defined not by testing, but by guilt by association in your mind
Neil.

Freethinker is a popular term thrown around atheists and agnostic
circles. I use it myself to describe myself.

http://www.freethoughtforum.org/about/freethought.aspx

I've only used Neil Kelsey as one example here and he not singled him
out despite his claims that I am vindictive. Neil Kelsey was given the
opportunity to write a rebuttal and have that rebuttal linked to this
post but he refused. Just as I offered the same rebuttal time to other
atheists I mention in my posts.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/2d4480f0471e8c18/d22376eaa1088a3a?hl=en#d22376eaa1088a3a

If I wanted to write a book on the subject I could have offered you an
almost endless supply of examples.

For instance. I posted on the subject of "Peace Tools for Atheists,
Agnostics and Believers" to the 'alt.atheism' to open up some dialogue
on what tools are available for the atheist or agnostic to use to
generate inner peace in place of organized religion.

In my post I covered many tools from simplicity, compassion, classical
philosophical studies, ethics, mindfulness, reciprocity, charity,
accepting impermanence, developing gratitude and contentment, cutting
back on craving and desires, working with natural law, balanced
living, etc.

I illustrated how I use freethinking to take tools for peace wherever
I find them without prejudice and evaluate the tool on it own and not
under guilt by association. All the tools I discussed were available
to use without the belief in God.

I received the following responses to my post on inner peace tools:

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "So fucking what? Keep it to yourself and
nobody will know what an asshole you are."

Kate wrote: "I've never been not at peace. What you offer makes me
physically ill. It's like a nasty man come round to tell little
kiddees he has candy for them if they touch his pee pee. You know,
most of the atheists I know are as good as children are at discerning
misrepresentation. You aren't trying to help anyone but your own
self. Go away, we have no interest in touching your pee pee."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "What the fuck has philosophy got to do
with your in-your-face psychopathy?"

Michael Gray wrote: "Stop posting your vile polemic deliberately
nasty, lying Christian? . Please go away. No-one is buying your
poisonous diatribe. Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?"

John Baker wrote: "First of all, this is a newsgroup, not the
freaking public library. Keep it short and to the point. Second,
you're full of shit."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "We know this deliberately nasty,
slandering liar is a Christian by his fruits...a liar as well as an
idiot...don't be so fucking stupid."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "You wouldn't know "virtuous behaviour" if
it hit you over the head, whining hypocrite who needs to get the log
out of his own eye before accusing us of a projection of his own
deficiencies."

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "a few hundred lines of irrelevant bullshit
by a whining hypocrite who
doesn't practice what he preaches, deleted"

Robibnikoff wrote: "Shaddup, you dick."

Michael Gray wrote: "There ain't nothin' lamer than a jabriol
fuckwit"

Christopher A. Lee wrote: "Whi give a shit, in-your-face stuipid
moron?"

John Baker wrote: 'I'd almost feel sorry for him if he wasn't such
a disgusting piece of shit."

Robibnikoff wrote: "I hope that stupid fucker (V) doesn't think I
actually read all that dog shit he posts."

Robibnikoff wrote: "....no one gives a shit what you think."

Stoney wrote: "Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to shove a
wooden cross up their arses and rotate at a high rate of speed. I
trust you'll be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters."


I did not receive one reply offering to discuss this topic, only
abusive replies condemning me and my offer for the discussion of
finding inner peace.

All these replies came from non-freethinking, mind manacled, defiant
based atheists.

How do I know they are such?

Because of their replies.

I do not expect for anyone to agree with any or all of my tools.

But if we disagree with a concept, we must have another concept to
replace what we have torn down in our minds as wrong. How do we know
what is wrong unless we know what is right?

With this group, all they could offer to replace my tools were 'ad
hominem' arguments to destroy me and not destroy the concepts.

Such non-freethinkers are characterized not by sound judgment,
rationality and wisdom, but by a prejudiced insobriety of opinion that
roots itself of egoistic pride.

Through a life based in condemnation prior to investigation, they do
not see that as they go to extreme measures to have no connection with
spirituality, their actions also causes a lose of connection with any
humanity.

Robibnikoff explained the plight of the mind amcled, defiance absed,
spittly sick athestr it best when she wrote: "I hope that stupid
fucker (V) doesn't think I actually read all that dog shit he posts."

She knows what I say is all wrong, without even reading it.

Reminds me of another mind manacled atheist Enkidu.

Enkidu writes: "You (V) have nothing to say that we haven't heard
before, nothing to say that hasn't been say better by others, and
nothing to say that was worth hearing when said better by others. Your
pathetic little turds of truth are unoriginal*, irrational, ill-
conceived, ill-received, and devoid of value. But no, with all the
understanding of diarrhoeic bull's ass, you continue to spray shit
with abandon. " (condensed)

Edkidu's condition of self deification is discussed here:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0


I would tell all the mind manacled, defiance based spiritually sick
atheists - sure, tearing others down appeals to one's ego and pride.
But so did torturing insects when we were kids. When we grow up we
need a different way to find self worth.

As you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds
and water these seeds within you as well.

As you give so you receive.

Is that from the bible or karma? No, it is just universal law.

Do we like to be beaten down?

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down others, we are headed
in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well
as others peace.

It takes no energy from me to pass something by and leave it alone in
peace. But it takes my energy as well as my peace to pick something up
to destroy it.

When I posted this paragraph earlier, a mind manacled atheist piped to
accuse me of hypocrisy, telling me that I destroy a potato when I pick
it up to eat it.

Natural law dictates I must eat, but there is no law that says I must
spew venom from my mouth to destroy others.

If you can get over fishing for red herrings and get onto bigger fish
to fry you will see a world of difference in your peace practice.

The destruction of inner peace by destroying potatoes comes about when
I destroy my neighbors crop field of potatoes by poisoning them to
bankrupt him in order to take over his farmland...it does not come
about by eating a potato.

The God of Nature gives me potatoes to eat, the God of inner Peace
tells me to not eat potatoes in excess or to destroy others if I wish
to be at peace. I cannot see either God, I know not how they work, I
just know they are.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0

That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.

All of us are not so fortunate in this respect and run on herd
instinct.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

But, when the true freethinker is shopping around for tools to build
their palace of inner peace, they can decide what goes into that tool
box and do not have useless tools thrust upon them.

Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the time
being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken and
useless.

Traditional freethinkers (atheists) do not accept me as one of their
group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to
garner wisdom to live at peace.

Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that comes from
religion.

Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a freethinker...but I must block out
everything that comes from religion and spiritual traditions and
whatever other prejudice I wish to inject into the equation?

Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe
they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And
realize the truth of Blake's words that "all deities reside within the
human breast."

Yes, if it is religion that an atheists need to adopt, they only have
to look as far as the religion of humanity.

But just paying secular humanism lip service will not do any good.

Our talk of spiritual values must match our actions.

Spiritual values and atheists do not generally mix. One atheists gave
his views on this subject of discussing spiritual tools to live by:

Al Klein writes:

"What is spirit or spirituality? Without knowing what you mean by the
word, one can't know what you mean. Why study something for which you
not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?"

Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the
wind is hard to define.

Since spiritual matters deal with the unseen and the unknown, how can
we define them perfectly?

If we could do that they would not be spiritual studies.

You can't see why one person is loving and kind and another person is
a fiend of perennial shame, hate and destruction.

Nor can you see what made the hate monger change into a kind and
loving human.

We can describe spiritual concepts and the journey that made the
change possible, but it is impossible to put our finger on it all
exactly.

Spiritual growth is a journey that is a never ending, an imperfect
process in this life.

But just as we can see the effects of the wind, while being blind to
its source; we can most definitely see the difference in people that
incorporate spiritual values within their lives when compared to
people that live a life devoid of any spiritual values.

Their are many fields of spiritual studies.

We can separate the studies into two main fields; the corporeal and
the meta-corporeal.

Some of these studies deal with energy fields, meditative states of
consciousness, out of body and near death accounts, psychic research,
etc.

Most of my work is in the corporal realm since that deals with inner
peace. I leave the advanced studies to those better qualified for it
than myself. Britain and the US both have centers for psychic
research. Plenty of information is out there if you are interested in
studying it.

"No man is so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other
counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for
a master." Ben Jonson

No one said we have to 'investigate it all,' but we do have to give it
some thought if we wish to be at peace.

A Hindu sage once told me "Just as water floes downhill without effort
but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the
human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without
effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than
our base desires."

As such without effort the defiance based atheists sinks deeper and
deeper into sickness and tragedy as time goes by.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e77181f1188b4804/8d580376205a536b?

The business of humanism is 'all our business' if we with to live life
at peace.

This relationship of interdependent humanistic balance can best be
visualized in the 3 corners of a triangle which represents the
spiritual realm, other persons and ourselves.

At the top goes Higher Power / God of Peace and God of Nature /
Yahweh / Buddha / The Dharma / Nature / Karma / Universe or whatever
you choose as the unseen force behind all.

On the bottom right corner of the triangle goes other people. On the
left bottom corner of the triangle goes yourself.

Keeping this relationship in harmonious balance helps develop
compassion for others and humility within ourselves.

We learn to think about others and the spirit as well as our own needs
and we can then see we are all interdependent and not independent with
all.

Once you see this balance you will realize that we all share the same
breath and no need to practice hatred or develop ill will towards
others. It is much better to develop compassion for others.

For as we develop compassion for others we develop peace within, just
as it is a law that when we develop hatred for others we develop
hatred within.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=628.0

No, egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to be
open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your growth
and sustenance for life - as no one person is god.

As a freethinking agnostic I AM FREE to look for truth wherever the
road takes me.

I discriminate against no one.

As such, I study with the Christians, the Buddhists, the Jews, the
Muslims, the Taoists and even find truth as I study with the
atheists.

I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide
spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his
life by the golden rule. A theist then injected that the golden rule
came from the bible, which made the atheist wince.

The atheist seemed to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not
like to run his life by anything that came out of the bible. When it
was suggested that the concept of golden rule might be from an earlier
source than the bible, then the atheist was relieved.

This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light
resides?

Is it ego based or truth based?

When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible
he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not approve
of, he was upset.

How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yet
only build a hovel for another?

By one spiritual practitioner seeing truth and applying it to live a
life at peace, and the other person only seeing prejudice, problems
and doing nothing.

Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect
as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also
has many "perfection's" within it as well.

We can still be open to peace generating tools from any of the
religions and spiritual traditions that are available to us if we are
serious about being at peace.

This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice.

In the Sermon on the Mount, it was reported that Jesus said:
“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to
them” (Matthew 7:12).

Nowadays this verse is commonly referred to as “The Golden Rule,” and
is more commonly quoted as: “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.”

Is the story of Jesus a myth?

I don't know, but there seems to be real and substantive reasons for
the myth theory to be true.

In any case, I can put principles before personalties and look at what
was said instead of who said what to get at the bottom line truth.

Even if Jesus was myth, it has no bearing on the practical application
of the golden rule of reciprocity anymore than the practical
application of Taoists beliefs that come from the myth of Lao Tzŭ.
Wisdom and truth transcend personalties.

Here are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity

~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause
him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient
Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

* ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another
whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,
Zoroastrianism.

* ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

* ~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh,
new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.

* ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist
or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you?

This truth is universal in nature as it is based not on being of a
certain religion, other than that of the religion of humanity. In this
case, you can adopt a peace generating tool and apply it to your life
irrespective of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I had to chuckle one time when an atheists argued that the golden rule
is not perfect, so he said he does not follow it. When I questioned
him about what he does follow as well as the state of perfection that
applied to his life, all he could do was reply with ad hominem
attacks.

If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we
will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything
outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us.

The nature of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look
towards direction and forget perfection.

I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this
point. "Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul." The only thing we
need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our
spiritual practice and our life.

Regarding the golden rule?

It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is a most useful tool to live
a life at peace by.

And when we combine it with other tools such as universality, natural
law, contrasting the greater good with the greater right, flourishing
of the species theory, etc., the synergistic effect is close to
perfection as humans can get with this subject.

But it takes some thinking and one will not see it without an open
mind.

I believe this is why religion was created in the first place. Most
people cannot give this subject of morals the time needed, so religion
is a condensed and easy to assimilate form of prepackaged morals. You
only hope the packing was done right from the start as we can see that
many religious devotees of the past have use it as a scapegoat to do
harm to others.

I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I
receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no
goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding
peace.

Sure, I do not have it '100% right' but I have it 'right enough' to be
able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I waited for
perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.

Aristotle ~ "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with
the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not
to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."

This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists
lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting
concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations.

The atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket
dismissal of the golden rule since it is not 100% perfect. He could
offer no substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb
to personal attacks on me.

We can examine our actions to see what useful tools for finding peace
we offer to others. This evaluation says a lot about our own practice
of generating inner peace.

When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will
reap self destruction of inner peace.

I suggest any atheists wishing to find inner peace within their life
adopt the creed of the atheists (their version of prepackaged morals)
and become practice based secular humanists as a good first start.
(Note the stress on practice and not on lip service...for without
application knowledge is useless.)


The 'informal creed' of atheism.

An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes
that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth
for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now.”

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/


"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"


• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.

• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute
to the betterment of human life.

• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is
the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.

• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.

• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and
with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so
that they will be able to help themselves.

• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.

• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.

• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our
creative talents to their fullest.

• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to
fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,
honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We
want to nourish reason and compassion.

• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still
to be made in the cosmos.

• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to
novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of
despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than
despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that
we are capable of as human beings.

Council for Secular Humanism

Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2

Bill M

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 2:55:00 PM10/29/07
to

"dank" <da...@nugget.org> wrote in message
news:d_qVi.61355$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
>
> The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
> treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> the existence of gods.

Get you head screwed on striaght! Atheism is the non belief in the existence
of gods.
The evidence that supports this belief is the total lack of objective
verifiable evidence
that any gods actually exist! We also do not beleive in Santa Claus, Ther
easter Bunny
or the Tooth Fairy for the same reason. This is science logic!

Agnosticism is scientific in that it admits
> that science can't prove or disprove the existence of gods and leaves
> it as an open question that might be solved with future science.

You can't prove the existence for something when there is NO-NADA objective
verifiable
evidence for its existence!

Bill M

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 2:57:24 PM10/29/07
to
Get an education!

"V" <vf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1193697482....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...


On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
> Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
> > Posted: August 20, 2005
> > 1:00 a.m. Eastern

> > Š 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Not necessarily.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=627.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=529.0

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_thread/thread/f4006812a06f9ddf

http://www.freethoughtforum.org/about/freethought.aspx

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/2d4480f0471e8c18/d22376eaa1088a3a?hl=en#d22376eaa1088a3a

Because of their replies.

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=342.0

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=646.0

Al Klein writes:

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e77181f1188b4804/8d580376205a536b?

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=628.0

application of Taoists beliefs that come from the myth of Lao Tzu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Regarding the golden rule?

that heaven is something for which we should work now - here on earth


for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he
must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life,
to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a
knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will
help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow
man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital
should be built instead of a church.

An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer
said.

An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.
He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He
wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a
god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a
hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our
own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the
time is now."

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/


"The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles"


. We are committed to the application of reason and science to the


understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to


explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature
for salvation.

. We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute


to the betterment of human life.

. We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is


the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian
elites and repressive majorities.

. We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.

. We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of


resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

. We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and


with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

. We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so


that they will be able to help themselves.

. We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,


religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of
humanity.

. We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future


generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other
species.

. We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our


creative talents to their fullest.

. We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

. We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to


fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to
exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and
informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

. We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity,


honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to
critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we
discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

. We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We


want to nourish reason and compassion.

. We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

. We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still


to be made in the cosmos.

. We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to


novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

. We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of


despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal
significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

. We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than


despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance,
joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love
instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of
ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

. We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that

yeah...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 8:39:56 PM10/29/07
to

Atheism is just as much of a religion as not collecting stamps is a
hobby. I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of God's
nonexistence, but then again, I've never met a theist that could
provide evidence for Santa's nonexistence, or the easter bunny's
nonexistence, or spiderman's nonexistence. Oddly enough though, they
don't believe in those things.

So, here's my suggestions for you-

Step 1. Pull head out of rectum.

Step 2. Stop using logic selectively.

Step 3. Read a book about LaVeyan Satanism, hell, read the wikipedia
article on Satanism. Satanism rejects the concept of deities existing
outside of the imagination of humans.This is an even stronger
atheistic position than is required to qualify as an atheist.

In terms of your argument about atheism lacking support, what kind of
support does it take to justify not believing in a deity? None, that's
what. The burden of proof lies with the person making the supernatural
claim. Atheism makes no supernatural claims. In terms of a strong
atheistic position of, "It is more probable that these Gods don't
exist," I think that there is an abundance of evidence to suggest that
this is the most probable answer. First of all, the vast majority of
God concepts contradict one another, some of them contradict
themselves, and even more contradict established scientific fact; for
example, the shape of the earth, the age of the earth, and the
location of the earth in the universe. So, which one is right? And
until some sort of evidence that one or the other is right appears
(because, currently, there is none) should we simply believe that one
of them must be right? How is that logical? It's it just as
reasonable, more so even, considering the history of these religions
and the claims they make that conflict with established physical laws
that have been observed in nature, to say that until evidence of their
claims is produced, that we shouldn't accept their claims.

I'm seriously tired of idiots coming out and making arguments about
atheism and agnosticism with entirely false definitions of the terms.

Atheism = The non-belief in a deity. (Note- not the belief that there
is no deity.)
Agnosticism = The belief that that God cannot be proved for lack of
evidence.

Agnosticism is a claim about what we can know about Gods. Atheism is a
position about belief in Gods. The two aren't even mutually
exclusive.

Saying I don't believe in X is not the same as saying that X's
nonexistence is scientific fact. And yes, the second position would
be unjustified. However, unfortunately for you, to this day I have
never, ever, met an atheist that held that second position. Saying
that the nonexistence of Gods is more likely, however, is completely
reasonable given a day to day life that is completely lacking all of
the crazy and miraculous bullshit that is included in every single
religious perspective in human history.

Al Klein

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 10:02:27 PM10/29/07
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:

>The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
>treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
>has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
>belief system

Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.

>atheists believe no gods exist

No, atheists lack belief in gods - not the same thing.

> which is just as unscientific

Lacking belief in something for which there's no evidence (and no
need) is scientific.

>Agnosticism

"In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are
certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Nothing to do with belief or lack of it.

> is scientific in that it admits
>that science can't prove or disprove the existence of gods and leaves
>it as an open question that might be solved with future science.

See above - what you claim has nothing to do with agnosticism.

>I solve the problem by practicing Satanism

That's belief in a supernatural being - Satan.

> which allows me to believe anything I want to

No, that's the practice of insanity.

>and the central tenet of LaVey/Manson brand of
>Satanism is the complete and utter destruction of xianity and all
>religious beLIEf systems.

Other than its own.

> The problem with atheism is that it is
>considered a non-belief and therefore denied the right to co-exist in
>the public arena, like in the lawsuit above. Satanism is recognized
>as an unpopular but constitutionally protected religion, so in theory
>it should be possible to demand the right of prisoners or school
>students to form Satanic study groups, equal time for Satanic prayers

It's completely legal to demand equal time to not pray. In fact, any
prisoner who doesn't wish to pray, or doesn't wish to attend any
particular religious service, is free to do so.

>equal access to "faith-based" federal funding for charitable activities.

Government funding of faith-based activity is illegal.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.

Death

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 11:18:08 PM10/29/07
to

"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:
>
> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> >has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> >belief system
>
> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.
>

Am I to take that on faith?
Do you believe in air ?


Death

unread,
Oct 29, 2007, 11:22:01 PM10/29/07
to

"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> Get you head screwed on striaght! Atheism is the non belief ...

Now that is real faith.


Smiler

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:20:36 AM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193691383.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

AFAIK, there is no holy book of Satanism to tell him what to believe, so he
is partially right.
He does, however, have to believe in Satan, which also makes him partially
wrong.
Belief in Satan also requires a belief in the Abrahamic god.

Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:42:50 AM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 12:20 am, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
> "ScottyFLL" <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:1193691383.4...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 29, 4:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
>
> >> I solve the problem by practicing Satanism which allows me to believe
> >> anything I want to
>
> > Satanism, which is theistic, doesn't allow you to believe anything you
> > want to any more than Christianity does.
>
> AFAIK, there is no holy book of Satanism to tell him what to believe, so he
> is partially right.

I don't think you need a book to tell you what to believe. One thing
he's apparently been told to believe is that Satan exists; even in the
absence of any proof, he believes that. He got that information from
outside himself, along with a history of Satan, what he can and can't
do, etc.

> He does, however, have to believe in Satan, which also makes him partially
> wrong.

And in qualities of Satan, which, again, he would have learned through
someone else.

> Belief in Satan also requires a belief in the Abrahamic god.

Well, if THAT'S the case, then he would have been told not only the
qualities of Satan but also the qualities of the Abrahamic god and how
these two powers work against each other.

Surely VERY far removed from believing just anything he wants! And,
in any event, quite theistic.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:45:28 AM10/30/07
to
On Oct 29, 2:55 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "dank" <d...@nugget.org> wrote in message

>
> news:d_qVi.61355$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
>
> > The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
> > treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> > has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> > the existence of gods.
>
> Get you head screwed on striaght! Atheism is the non belief in the existence
> of gods.

Well... or... the BELIEF in the NON-existence of gods.

Atheism is rather a belief than a non-belief, no?

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:46:29 AM10/30/07
to

Have you ever met anyone who could prove the non-existence of the
Easter bunny?

How do you prove NON-existence?

That's ridiculous.


Uncle Vic

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:10:37 AM10/30/07
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <da...@nugget.org> bloodied us up with
this:

> Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> the existence of gods.

This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a life
without superstitious belief. Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
do not believe gods exist. The difference is that the former is a
positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of theism,
based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's really that
easy.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.


Uncle Vic

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:12:39 AM10/30/07
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> bloodied us up
with this:

>

> "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Get you head screwed on striaght! Atheism is the non belief ...
>
> Now that is real faith.
>
>
>

Only to someone who cannot imagine a life without faith.

Uncle Vic

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:31:21 AM10/30/07
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> bloodied us up
with this:

>

You don't have to. It's reality. Is not collecting baseball cards a
hobby?

> Do you believe in air ?
>

No. I *know* air exists, and I can prove it. See the difference?

Uncle Vic

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:34:07 AM10/30/07
to
One fine day in alt.atheism, yeah...@gmail.com bloodied us up with this:

> I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of God's
> nonexistence

It depends on whether one is willing to throw the monkey off one's
shoulders for good. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense, therefore
no gods exist.

juanjo

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:05:57 AM10/30/07
to
On Oct 29, 8:18 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
>
> > >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
> > >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> > >has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> > >belief system
>
> > Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.
>
> Am I to take that on faith?
> Do you believe in air ?

Atheism takes the position that there is no objective proof of the
existence of deities and takes this a step further and posits a
philosophical position that no deities could exist. Agnosticism
simply follows the path of scientific logic that there is no evidence
of a deity nor the non-existence of any deity. In the absence of any
scientifically reproducible evidence of the existence or non-existence
of a deity, agnostics simply take no position one way or another. Of
course, depending on which group you are dealing with there are many
shadings on these definitions. Then there are belief structures such
as the Buddhists who take a position that there may deities, real or
imagined, and even may adopt the local deities in a given area as
embodiments of the Buddha-Dharma. However the Discourses of the
Buddha indicate that the Buddha himself when asked about deities
simply stated they were irrelevant to the purpose of Buddhism which is
enlightenment. So some Buddhists are theists while others are not.

Belief in the air is something different as the absence of air can be
reproduced in the laboratory and scientifically observed.
Religionists cannot perform any scientific experiment which confirms
the presence of a deity nor can an atheist perform any scientific
experiment to disprove the existence of such an entity. Atheism is a
philosophy and as such has its various proponents and variation on its
themes. But it is definitely not a religion which posits a belief
structure in some supernatural belief structure, most commonly a deity
or deities.

parsi...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:57:49 AM10/30/07
to
On 29 oct, 23:38, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
>
> > Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
> > > Posted: August 20, 2005
> > > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> > > © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> > > A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
> > > violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
> > > religion.
>
> > > "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start
>
> Sure atheism is a religion.

No it isn't. Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby?

(overlong rant snipped)
Ever thought of writing shorter postings, idiot?

Olrik

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:10:56 AM10/30/07
to

Thus, you're agnostic about Zeus, Thor, Râ, and thousands upon
thousands of other "gods" invented by humans. And the ones we make up
every day.

I believe that there's a Red Dragon at the centre of the earth. Are
you *agnostic* about that?

Olrik

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 10:42:49 AM10/30/07
to

"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message

> One fine day in alt.atheism, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> bloodied us up
> with this:
>
> > "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Get you head screwed on striaght! Atheism is the non belief ...
> >
> > Now that is real faith.
> >
>
> Only to someone who cannot imagine a life without faith.
>

Another seer. Kewl, tell me all about my belief/faith.
Please don't use the excuse that you are full of shit.


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 10:53:18 AM10/30/07
to

"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> bloodied us up
>


> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism"
be
> >> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> >> >has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of
a
> >> >belief system
> >>
> >> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.
> >>
> >
> > Am I to take that on faith?
>
> You don't have to. It's reality. Is not collecting baseball cards a
> hobby?
>

Yes, it is commonly known as atheism.


> > Do you believe in air ?
>
> No. I *know* air exists, and I can prove it. See the difference?
>

No, I don't see the difference because you didn't prove air exists
so I could see. I guess you would call your proof:
not collecting baseball cards.


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 10:59:32 AM10/30/07
to

"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message

> One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <da...@nugget.org> bloodied us up with


> this:
>
> > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> > the existence of gods.
>
> This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a
life
> without superstitious belief.

Voodoo?

>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> do not believe gods exist.

See, you do take that on faith.

>The difference is that the former is a
> positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of theism,
> based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's really
that
> easy.
>

And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 10:08:39 AM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:jNGVi.12452$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <da...@nugget.org> bloodied us up with
>> this:
>>
>> > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
>> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
>> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
>> > the existence of gods.
>>
>> This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a
> life
>> without superstitious belief.
>
> Voodoo?
>

Those that practice Voodoo, are theists.

>>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
>> do not believe gods exist.
>
> See, you do take that on faith.

Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists, the
logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.

>
>>The difference is that the former is a
>> positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of theism,
>> based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's really
> that
>> easy.
>>
> And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>

None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is ample
evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 11:54:05 AM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> On Oct 29, 2:55 pm, "Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > "dank" <d...@nugget.org> wrote in message
> >

> > > Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
> >
> > > The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism"
be
> > > treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> > > has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of
a
> > > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> > > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> > > the existence of gods.
> >
> > Get you head screwed on striaght! Atheism is the non belief in the
existence
> > of gods.
>
> Well... or... the BELIEF in the NON-existence of gods.
>
> Atheism is rather a belief than a non-belief, no?
>

Yes. Such belief is the basis of all religion.


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:07:53 PM10/30/07
to

<parsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

On 29 oct, 23:38, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
>
> > Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
> > > Posted: August 20, 2005
> > > 1:00 a.m. Eastern

> > > Š 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


>
> > > A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
> > > violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
> > > religion.
>
> > > "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to
start
>
> Sure atheism is a religion.

>No it isn't. Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby?

It is for an atheist.

>(overlong rant snipped)
>Ever thought of writing shorter postings, idiot?

You should have said beforehand you suffered from ADD.
Take your meds and chill, it will be alright shortly.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:23:48 PM10/30/07
to

"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message

> One fine day in alt.atheism, yeah...@gmail.com bloodied us up with


this:
>
> > I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of God's
> > nonexistence
>
> It depends on whether one is willing to throw the monkey off one's
> shoulders for good. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense,
therefore
> no gods exist.
>

The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 11:27:05 AM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:j0IVi.12490$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

The Hindu Gods also do not exist.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:40:23 PM10/30/07
to

"juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> >
> > Am I to take that on faith?
> > Do you believe in air ?
>
> Atheism takes the position that there is no objective proof of the
> existence of deities and takes this a step further and posits a
> philosophical position that no deities could exist. Agnosticism

> simply follows the path of scientific logic ...

I'll have to pass here, sorry.
I have limited knowledge of the science of religion.
I'll leave that for Tom Cruise to address.

> Belief in the air is something different as the absence of air ...

Well that got turned 180 degrees.
Ok, thank you.


ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 11:46:07 AM10/30/07
to

I think in the present case that isn't really the point. This man
wanted to start a group, the common belief being an expressly rejected
a belief in a supreme being.

I think there would be an equal protection element here. People who
DO believe in supreme beings are allowed to congregate. So shouldn't
a group that expressly rejects the notion of supreme beings be able to
do the same thing?

Wouldn't there be, in such a group, a "communal faith" in the non-
existence of supreme beings? And couldn't this fit one of the many
definitions of "religion"?

(Wouldn't a group of people whose goal it was to "not collect stamps"
have a mission of their own? Couldn't the "hobby" be to resist the
temptation to fall into stamp collecting?)

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 11:50:50 AM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 10:59 am, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <d...@nugget.org> bloodied us up with

> > this:
>
> > > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> > > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> > > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> > > the existence of gods.
>
> > This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a
> life
> > without superstitious belief.
>
> Voodoo?
>
> >Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> > do not believe gods exist.
>
> See, you do take that on faith.

Then wouldn't it qualify as a religion?

> >The difference is that the former is a
> > positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of theism,
> > based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's really
> that
> > easy.
>
> And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........

Because there is no proof of their existence.

It's that simple.

If you have proof, the world would love to see it.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 11:59:54 AM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 10:08 am, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
wrote:

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jNGVi.12452$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <d...@nugget.org> bloodied us up with

> >> this:
>
> >> > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> >> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> >> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> >> > the existence of gods.
>
> >> This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a
> > life
> >> without superstitious belief.
>
> > Voodoo?
>
> Those that practice Voodoo, are theists.
>
> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> >> do not believe gods exist.
>
> > See, you do take that on faith.
>
> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists, the
> logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.

Ummmm.... More logic and philosophy, really, than science.

Science is still looking, whether scientists admit it or not.

Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> >>The difference is that the former is a
> >> positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of theism,
> >> based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's really
> > that
> >> easy.
>
> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>
> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is ample

> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.-

It's highly suggestive, given the qualities attributed to the
Christian god (who could just MAKE us all believe), that this power
does not exist as described.

Consider a person who goes to the doctor complaining of something
wrong. The doctor runs the usual battery of tests, they come back
normal, and the patient is told that there is nothing wrong.

But there might be, even though the doctor didn't find anything.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:06:51 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <da...@nugget.org> bloodied us up
with
> >> this:
> >>
> >> > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> >> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> >> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> >> > the existence of gods.
> >>
> >> This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a
> > life
> >> without superstitious belief.
> >
> > Voodoo?
> >
>
> Those that practice Voodoo, are theists.
>

Or better phrased, a theist practice.

> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> >> do not believe gods exist.
> >
> > See, you do take that on faith.
>
> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists, the
> logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.
>

Science is based on a belief, but a religion is not based on science.
Science has failed to cure even the common cold and you
expect science to prove gods, lol.

> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
> >
> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is ample
> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.

Oh....ok, got ya. You require proof but offer none.
I refer you to the Hindu for proof of an existing god,
the American Indian, until recently the Japanese Emperor.

Each could/can be seen, touched, heard but you still didn't believe.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:07:32 PM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193759994.5...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 30, 10:08 am, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
> wrote:
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:jNGVi.12452$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <d...@nugget.org> bloodied us up
>> >> with
>> >> this:
>>
>> >> > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
>> >> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
>> >> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
>> >> > the existence of gods.
>>
>> >> This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a
>> > life
>> >> without superstitious belief.
>>
>> > Voodoo?
>>
>> Those that practice Voodoo, are theists.
>>
>> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
>> >> do not believe gods exist.
>>
>> > See, you do take that on faith.
>>
>> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists, the
>> logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.
>
> Ummmm.... More logic and philosophy, really, than science.

Nope, it's science.

>
> Science is still looking, whether scientists admit it or not.
>
> Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>

But it is the best evidence we have that it doesn't exist. The same goes
for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and any other mythological entity you
care to mention. Since there is no evidence that they actually exist, most
over the age of five or ten at the most simply accepts that they do not
exist.


>> >>The difference is that the former is a
>> >> positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of
>> >> theism,
>> >> based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's really
>> > that
>> >> easy.
>>
>> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>>
>> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is ample
>> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.-
>
> It's highly suggestive, given the qualities attributed to the
> Christian god (who could just MAKE us all believe), that this power
> does not exist as described.
>
> Consider a person who goes to the doctor complaining of something
> wrong. The doctor runs the usual battery of tests, they come back
> normal, and the patient is told that there is nothing wrong.
>
> But there might be, even though the doctor didn't find anything.
>

If there is, eventually the evidence for the condition will present itself,
albeit post mortum in some cases. We've been waiting what, five or six
thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing. We
have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do for God
or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:12:48 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:GEIVi.12507$a9.1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>>
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <da...@nugget.org> bloodied us up
> with
>> >> this:
>> >>
>> >> > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
>> >> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
>> >> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
>> >> > the existence of gods.
>> >>
>> >> This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine a
>> > life
>> >> without superstitious belief.
>> >
>> > Voodoo?
>> >
>>
>> Those that practice Voodoo, are theists.
>>
>
> Or better phrased, a theist practice.
>
>> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
>> >> do not believe gods exist.
>> >
>> > See, you do take that on faith.
>>
>> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists, the
>> logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.
>>
>
> Science is based on a belief,

Science is based on evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.

but a religion is not based on science.
> Science has failed to cure even the common cold and you
> expect science to prove gods, lol.

Nope, but since it can't prove gods, the logical assumption is that gods
don't exist.

>
>> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>> >
>> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is ample
>> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.
>
> Oh....ok, got ya. You require proof but offer none.

I'm not the one that cares about whether you believe in gods or not. Most
often theists care very much that you believe in their particular deity,
often to the point that they will torture and murder you for not believing
in their particular deity. If they wish to convince me to "join up", then
they will have to provide the proof.

> I refer you to the Hindu for proof of an existing god,
> the American Indian, until recently the Japanese Emperor.
>

There is no proof of an existing god. Humans posing as gods do not qualify.

> Each could/can be seen, touched, heard but you still didn't believe.

see above.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:24:30 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:e3IVi.3101$Bk....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
considering the sheltered life you lead in your fantasy world.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:26:45 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:dVIVi.12515$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

A cow is not a god.

> considering the sheltered life you lead in your fantasy world.

At least I'm not idiot enough to believe that a cow is a god.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:54:59 PM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> On Oct 30, 10:59 am, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:

> > "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> > > One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <d...@nugget.org> bloodied us up
with
> > > this:
> >
> > > > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> > > > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> > > > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing in
> > > > the existence of gods.
> >
> > > This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot imagine
a
> > life
> > > without superstitious belief.
> >
> > Voodoo?
> >
> > >Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> > > do not believe gods exist.
> >
> > See, you do take that on faith.
>
> Then wouldn't it qualify as a religion?
>

The religion is called Denial-ism, worshiped
at the feet of science, served on the alter
of accountability and chant from the Book of Rote.


Al Klein

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:54:55 PM10/30/07
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:18:08 -0600, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:
>>

>> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
>> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity

>> >has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
>> >belief system
>>


>> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.

>Am I to take that on faith?

Is lack of an apple an apple? An "apple system"?

Is baldness a hair color?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

>Do you believe in air ?

Theism isn't a belief in air, it's a belief in gods. Atheism is LACK
OF belief in gods.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln

Al Klein

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 12:58:20 PM10/30/07
to
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:05:57 -0700, juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>Atheism takes the position that there is no objective proof of the
>existence of deities and takes this a step further and posits a
>philosophical position that no deities could exist.

Some atheists do, some don't. Atheism qua atheism is merely lack of
belief in gods.

>Agnosticism simply follows the path of scientific logic that there is no evidence
>of a deity nor the non-existence of any deity. In the absence of any
>scientifically reproducible evidence of the existence or non-existence
>of a deity, agnostics simply take no position one way or another.

Not exactly.

Huxley's explanation of the word he invented:

"In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are
certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

While it pertains to gods, as it pertains to everything, agnosticism
isn't specifically about deities.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:07:09 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, yeah...@gmail.com bloodied us up
with
> >> > this:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of God's
> >> >> > nonexistence
> >> >>
> >> >> It depends on whether one is willing to throw the monkey off one's
> >> >> shoulders for good. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense,
> >> > therefore
> >> >> no gods exist.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
> >> >
> >> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
> >>
> >
> > That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
>
> A cow is not a god.
>

Perhaps not to you and me.

> > considering the sheltered life you lead in your fantasy world.
>
> At least I'm not idiot enough to believe that a cow is a god.
>

OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:09:25 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:bxJVi.12532$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>>
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, yeah...@gmail.com bloodied us up
> with
>> >> > this:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of God's
>> >> >> > nonexistence
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It depends on whether one is willing to throw the monkey off one's
>> >> >> shoulders for good. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense,
>> >> > therefore
>> >> >> no gods exist.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
>> >> >
>> >> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
>>
>> A cow is not a god.
>>
>
> Perhaps not to you and me.

Or to anyone but the self-deluded.

>
>> > considering the sheltered life you lead in your fantasy world.
>>
>> At least I'm not idiot enough to believe that a cow is a god.
>>
>
> OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?
>

That a cow is not a god... Yes.


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:15:59 PM10/30/07
to

"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>


>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism"
be
> >> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
> >> >has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of
a
> >> >belief system
> >>
> >> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.
>
> >Am I to take that on faith?
>
> Is lack of an apple an apple? An "apple system"?
>

Why do you insist on asking me about a lack of,
that is your religion, don't you know?

> Is baldness a hair color?
>
> Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
>
> >Do you believe in air ?
>
> Theism isn't a belief in air, it's a belief in gods. Atheism is LACK
> OF belief in gods.

Why do you keep using your religion to show your lack of religion?


ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:22:43 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 12:07 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
wrote:
> "ScottyFLL" <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Nope. Science cannot prove that gods do not exist.

> > Science is still looking, whether scientists admit it or not.
>
> > Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> But it is the best evidence we have that it doesn't exist. The same goes
> for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and any other mythological entity you
> care to mention. Since there is no evidence that they actually exist, most
> over the age of five or ten at the most simply accepts that they do not
> exist.

Naw. Science is still finding things previously not known to exist.
Does this mean these things didn't exist until the scientists found
them? Of course not.

Your conclusion comes from philosophy, not science.

> >> >>The difference is that the former is a
> >> >> positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of
> >> >> theism,
> >> >> based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's really
> >> > that
> >> >> easy.
>
> >> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>
> >> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is ample
> >> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.-
>
> > It's highly suggestive, given the qualities attributed to the
> > Christian god (who could just MAKE us all believe), that this power
> > does not exist as described.
>
> > Consider a person who goes to the doctor complaining of something
> > wrong. The doctor runs the usual battery of tests, they come back
> > normal, and the patient is told that there is nothing wrong.
>
> > But there might be, even though the doctor didn't find anything.
>
> If there is, eventually the evidence for the condition will present itself,
> albeit post mortum in some cases.

Not always. Anyway, it's just an example. Some people die of unknown
causes. That doesn't mean that the cause doesn't exist.

> We've been waiting what, five or six
> thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing.

I am with you on this. But not showing oneself does not mean that one
does not exist. Not being found does not mean that one does not
exist.

Your argument is philosophical and not scientific. In the course of
human events, the atom was recently discovered. That does not mean
that it didn't exist before it was found.

> We
> have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do for God

> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.-

Sure, the evidence for NON-existence of God or gods is the same as the
evidence for non-existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Proving non-existence... how on earth would one DO that? "I don't see
it, therefore it doesn't exist"? Come on now!

Dennis Kemmerer

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:22:12 PM10/30/07
to
"juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1193724357....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

[snip 'Death's' idiocy]

> Atheism takes the position that there is no objective proof of the
> existence of deities and takes this a step further and posits a

> philosophical position that no deities could exist. Agnosticism


> simply follows the path of scientific logic that there is no evidence
> of a deity nor the non-existence of any deity. In the absence of any
> scientifically reproducible evidence of the existence or non-existence
> of a deity, agnostics simply take no position one way or another.

That's almost correct.

Most of us have very well-defined positions on the existence of dieties. The
defining characteristic of agnosticism is that none of those positions can
be proven or disproven, and that it's not necessary to prove or disprove
them.

[snip]


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:29:01 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> If there is, eventually the evidence for the condition will present
itself,
> albeit post mortum in some cases. We've been waiting what, five or six
> thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing.

Damn, I'm not that old.

>We have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do for
God
> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.
>

I've seen Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny the Tooth Fairy
and Charleston Hesten in movies.
So ah, .......God really did talk to Moses after all, kewl.


ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 1:34:06 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 1:09 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
wrote:

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:bxJVi.12532$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> >> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >> > "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, yeahch...@gmail.com bloodied us up

> > with
> >> >> > this:
>
> >> >> >> > I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of God's
> >> >> >> > nonexistence
>
> >> >> >> It depends on whether one is willing to throw the monkey off one's
> >> >> >> shoulders for good. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense,
> >> >> > therefore
> >> >> >> no gods exist.
>
> >> >> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
>
> >> >> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
>
> >> > That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
>
> >> A cow is not a god.
>
> > Perhaps not to you and me.
>
> Or to anyone but the self-deluded.
>
>
>
> >> > considering the sheltered life you lead in your fantasy world.
>
> >> At least I'm not idiot enough to believe that a cow is a god.
>
> > OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?
>
> That a cow is not a god...

How do we scientifically prove this?

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:40:55 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote

>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, dank <da...@nugget.org> bloodied us up
> >> >>
> >> >> > Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
> >> >> > belief system with no scientific evidence to support it; atheists
> >> >> > believe no gods exist which is just as unscientific as believing
in
> >> >> > the existence of gods.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is the typical theistic view of atheism; theists cannot
imagine a
> >> > life
> >> >> without superstitious belief.
> >> >
> >> > Voodoo?
> >>
> >> Those that practice Voodoo, are theists.
> >
> > Or better phrased, a theist practice.
> >
> >> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> >> >> do not believe gods exist.
> >> >
> >> > See, you do take that on faith.
> >>
> >> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists,
the
> >> logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.
> >
> > Science is based on a belief,
>
> Science is based on evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.

Sounds like atheism to me, not science.

> >> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
> >> >
> >> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is
ample
> >> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.
> >
> > Oh....ok, got ya. You require proof but offer none.
>
> I'm not the one that cares about whether you believe in gods or not.

Then you don't mind leaving this discussion?


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:06:22 PM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193764963.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

It can be scientifically inferred that if something cannot be proven to
exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does exist.

>
>> > Science is still looking, whether scientists admit it or not.
>>
>> > Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>>
>> But it is the best evidence we have that it doesn't exist. The same goes
>> for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and any other mythological entity you
>> care to mention. Since there is no evidence that they actually exist,
>> most
>> over the age of five or ten at the most simply accepts that they do not
>> exist.
>
> Naw.

Yaw...

> Science is still finding things previously not known to exist.

After 6,000 years of research, one might imagine that someone would have
come up with some empirical evidence for the existence of gods before now.
What's the hold up?

> Does this mean these things didn't exist until the scientists found
> them? Of course not.

We did not know that certain stars and planets existed, however there was
evidence for their existence in the movement of other stars and planets.

>
> Your conclusion comes from philosophy, not science.
>

Nope, hard science.

>> >> >>The difference is that the former is a
>> >> >> positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of
>> >> >> theism,
>> >> >> based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's
>> >> >> really
>> >> > that
>> >> >> easy.
>>
>> >> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>>
>> >> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is
>> >> ample
>> >> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.-
>>
>> > It's highly suggestive, given the qualities attributed to the
>> > Christian god (who could just MAKE us all believe), that this power
>> > does not exist as described.
>>
>> > Consider a person who goes to the doctor complaining of something
>> > wrong. The doctor runs the usual battery of tests, they come back
>> > normal, and the patient is told that there is nothing wrong.
>>
>> > But there might be, even though the doctor didn't find anything.
>>
>> If there is, eventually the evidence for the condition will present
>> itself,
>> albeit post mortum in some cases.
>
> Not always. Anyway, it's just an example. Some people die of unknown
> causes. That doesn't mean that the cause doesn't exist.

Not many die of unknown causes anymore.

>
>> We've been waiting what, five or six
>> thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing.
>
> I am with you on this. But not showing oneself does not mean that one
> does not exist. Not being found does not mean that one does not
> exist.

Where's the proof of his existence?

>
> Your argument is philosophical and not scientific. In the course of
> human events, the atom was recently discovered.

But evidence for its existence has always been there. You cannot have solid
objects without atoms.


That does not mean
> that it didn't exist before it was found.
>

Touch a nearby wall. There, atoms exist. Can you do the same with gods?
The evidence that atoms existed well before mankind knew what the basic
building blocks for that wall would be. You're confusing not knowing
something exists with lack of evidence for that something.

>> We
>> have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do for
>> God
>> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.-
>
> Sure, the evidence for NON-existence of God or gods is the same as the
> evidence for non-existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny.
>
> Proving non-existence... how on earth would one DO that? "I don't see
> it, therefore it doesn't exist"? Come on now!

It's not just a matter of sight.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:08:47 PM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193765646.7...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Open a MacDonald's in Bijapur City.

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:10:25 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:IRJVi.12542$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

So you're saying that god is really George Burns?

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:11:30 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:S0KVi.12547$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

Sounds like science to me.

>> >> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>> >> >
>> >> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is
> ample
>> >> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.
>> >
>> > Oh....ok, got ya. You require proof but offer none.
>>
>> I'm not the one that cares about whether you believe in gods or not.
>
> Then you don't mind leaving this discussion?
>

You first.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:17:12 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote

>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, yeah...@gmail.com bloodied us up
> > with
> >> >> > this:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of
God's
> >> >> >> > nonexistence
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It depends on whether one is willing to throw the monkey off
one's
> >> >> >> shoulders for good. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense,
> >> >> > therefore
> >> >> >> no gods exist.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
> >> >> >
> >> >> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
> >>
> >> A cow is not a god.
> >>
> > Perhaps not to you and me.
>
> Or to anyone but the self-deluded.

Your earlier claim was there are no gods.
Now you say the self-deluded do in fact have gods.
You remind me of an old wash-woman.

> > OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?
>
> That a cow is not a god... Yes.

In your opinion.


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:25:38 PM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>

> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >


> > >> >> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
> >
> > >> >> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
> >
> > >> > That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
> >
> > >> A cow is not a god.
> >
> > > Perhaps not to you and me.
> >
> > Or to anyone but the self-deluded.
> >
> > >> > considering the sheltered life you lead in your fantasy world.
> >
> > >> At least I'm not idiot enough to believe that a cow is a god.
> >
> > > OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?
> >
> > That a cow is not a god...
>
> How do we scientifically prove this?
>

I think you are confusing their selective use of the word science
with the word science.
Their version of science only disproves things, though no scientific fact
of the findings are presented.
They use science to justify that, the absence of evidence, don't ya know.


The Most Reverend Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN.

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:27:20 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 29, 10:38 pm, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
<snip>
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/index.shtml

The Most Reverend Dr. Hugh Jarse NLAHN.

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:29:20 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 4:07 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> <parsifa...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> On 29 oct, 23:38, V <vf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 3:01 pm, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
>
> > > Death wrote..., On 10/28/2007 18:56:
> > > > Posted: August 20, 2005
> > > > 1:00 a.m. Eastern
> > > > © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
>
> > > > A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials
> > > > violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a
> > > > religion.
>
> > > > "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to
> start
>
> > Sure atheism is a religion.
> >No it isn't. Is "not collecting stamps" a hobby?
>
> It is for an atheist.
>
> >(overlong rant snipped)
> >Ever thought of writing shorter postings, idiot?
>
> You should have said beforehand you suffered from ADD.
> Take your meds and chill, it will be alright shortly.

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/index.shtml

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:35:45 PM10/30/07
to

"Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message

> "juanjo" <jonp...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

>
> [snip 'Death's' idiocy]
>
but not yours, I'll address your idiocy.

> > Atheism takes the position that there is no objective proof of the
> > existence of deities and takes this a step further and posits a
> > philosophical position that no deities could exist. Agnosticism
> > simply follows the path of scientific logic that there is no evidence
> > of a deity nor the non-existence of any deity. In the absence of any
> > scientifically reproducible evidence of the existence or non-existence
> > of a deity, agnostics simply take no position one way or another.
>
> That's almost correct.
>
> Most of us have very well-defined positions on the existence of dieties.

Sounds like an organized religion to me.


ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 2:45:33 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 2:29 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> > If there is, eventually the evidence for the condition will present
> itself,
> > albeit post mortum in some cases. We've been waiting what, five or six
> > thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing.
>
> Damn, I'm not that old.

Pretty damn close though, right? :-)

Let's figure your age:

x/y-6=QRW*h

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU STILL BREATHE???

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:56:50 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >
> It can be scientifically inferred that if something cannot be proven to
> exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does exist.
>

Science can't say if the chicken or the egg came first, now you want
science to prove God.


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:00:11 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >>
> >>We have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do
for
> > God
> >> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.
> >>
> > I've seen Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny the Tooth Fairy
> > and Charleston Hesten in movies.
> > So ah, .......God really did talk to Moses after all, kewl.
>
> So you're saying that god is really George Burns?
>

Did you miss the movie?


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:04:35 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:SyKVi.12565$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

I said the self-deluded believe that cows are gods. And we don't need to
talk about your mother.

>
>> > OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?
>>
>> That a cow is not a god... Yes.
>
> In your opinion.
>

Prove that a cow is a god.

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:05:44 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:18LVi.12585$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>> >
>> It can be scientifically inferred that if something cannot be proven to
>> exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does exist.
>>
>
> Science can't say if the chicken or the egg came first,

Because neither did.

> now you want
> science to prove God.

Did I say that I wanted science to prove god?

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:06:05 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:9bLVi.12587$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

Did you miss your med dosage today?

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:08:28 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 2:06 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>

Hmm.

Then why do scientists keep searching for things -- and finding OTHER
things that they hadn't known existed? They wouldn't search for
things if they already knew them to exist, and they wouldn't find
things they hadn't thought existed if what you say is correct.

Do you have a cite for this? I just don't think you're right. I just
don't think it's scientific to say that, "I haven't seen this,
therefore it doesn't exist."

(And mind you -- this is one of those topics with which I can argue
either side... Telling you what I really believe would fuck up my
fun!! But I will... in time...)

> >> > Science is still looking, whether scientists admit it or not.
>
> >> > Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
> >> But it is the best evidence we have that it doesn't exist. The same goes
> >> for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and any other mythological entity you
> >> care to mention. Since there is no evidence that they actually exist,
> >> most
> >> over the age of five or ten at the most simply accepts that they do not
> >> exist.
>
> > Naw.
>
> Yaw...

We accept that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist (even though
when I'm home for Easter, I STILL, at age 46, find an Easter basket!)

We cannot PROVE that they don't exist.

There is no scientific formula to prove the non-existence of the
Easter Bunny, especially in light of the fact that I keep getting
Easter baskets and I never see who hides them.

> > Science is still finding things previously not known to exist.
>
> After 6,000 years of research, one might imagine that someone would have
> come up with some empirical evidence for the existence of gods before now.
> What's the hold up?

I actually wrote a paper on this, espousing your view. Well... and my
view... that non-existence can't be proved.

PART of the problem here is that we are accepting Christian
definitions for what "supreme being" means. In Christianity, this GOD
has IMMENSE power, and cares about each of us. AND is the Creator.

Try to deconstruct that a bit. Say that the "Creator" created a god,
and that the Creator then vanished. That's a possibility (but not in
Christianity). Say that this god IS NOT omnipotent. Say that this
god is NOT all good....

Say that this god does NOT care about each person individually...

Do you see what I'm saying? You are ACCEPTING Christians' definition
of their god, without considering that a power might exist that
doesn't have these powers, or doesn't hold these powers for
EVERYONE.

> > Does this mean these things didn't exist until the scientists found
> > them? Of course not.
>
> We did not know that certain stars and planets existed, however there was
> evidence for their existence in the movement of other stars and planets.

Not in the year 3000 BC there wasn't. They didn't even fucking know
that the earth circled the sun! Did Pluto exist in 3000 BC?

> > Your conclusion comes from philosophy, not science.
>
> Nope, hard science.

Show us. It's a simple request. If this is HARD science -- "proving"
non-existence -- I think it's important that we should know exactly
how this theory or "fact" works.

> >> >> >>The difference is that the former is a
> >> >> >> positive, the latter is negative. Atheism is merely the lack of
> >> >> >> theism,
> >> >> >> based on the lack of evidence to support theistic claims. It's
> >> >> >> really
> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> easy.
>
> >> >> > And the evidence to support your claim there are no gods is.........
>
> >> >> None required. The lack of evidence that any God or Gods exist is
> >> >> ample
> >> >> evidence to conclude that no God or Gods exist.-
>
> >> > It's highly suggestive, given the qualities attributed to the
> >> > Christian god (who could just MAKE us all believe), that this power
> >> > does not exist as described.
>
> >> > Consider a person who goes to the doctor complaining of something
> >> > wrong. The doctor runs the usual battery of tests, they come back
> >> > normal, and the patient is told that there is nothing wrong.
>
> >> > But there might be, even though the doctor didn't find anything.
>
> >> If there is, eventually the evidence for the condition will present
> >> itself,
> >> albeit post mortum in some cases.
>
> > Not always. Anyway, it's just an example. Some people die of unknown
> > causes. That doesn't mean that the cause doesn't exist.
>
> Not many die of unknown causes anymore.

Not many?

But what about 100 years ago? They didn't know the cause. Didn't the
cause exist? Haven't we found the cause SINCE then?

Do you REALLY think that civilization is scientifically advanced?
Science as we know it is VERY new. I'd LOVE to come back in 100 years
to see what's going on!

> >> We've been waiting what, five or six
> >> thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing.
>
> > I am with you on this. But not showing oneself does not mean that one
> > does not exist. Not being found does not mean that one does not
> > exist.
>
> Where's the proof of his existence?

I don't have any. I also have no proof for the Big Bang.

See, the Big Bang theory takes us back to a place before things
existed.... to ... a place where things existed!! Same place as the
story of the Christian god. I asked at a very young age: "Where did
God come from?"

BB takes me to the same place. Where did these things that CREATED
the BB come from? Where did the ROOM for the expansion of the
universe come from? I know they say it was a "vacuum", but isn't a
vacuum a THING?

> > Your argument is philosophical and not scientific. In the course of
> > human events, the atom was recently discovered.
>
> But evidence for its existence has always been there.

Not back in 3000 BC it wasn't.

> You cannot have solid
> objects without atoms.

They didn't care in 3000 BC.

> That does not mean
>
> > that it didn't exist before it was found.
>
> Touch a nearby wall. There, atoms exist. Can you do the same with gods?

*I* certainly can't. But gods are supposed to be spiritual, not
material.

> The evidence that atoms existed well before mankind knew what the basic
> building blocks for that wall would be.

Of COURSE they did. But people didn't know about them. And when they
were first theorized, people couldn't prove their existence.

> You're confusing not knowing
> something exists with lack of evidence for that something.

No. I'm saying that science is in its infancy. For many of us, it
has become the de facto religion. But science has yet to be able to
PROVE non-existence. So far as I know.

> >> We
> >> have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do for
> >> God
> >> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.-
>
> > Sure, the evidence for NON-existence of God or gods is the same as the
> > evidence for non-existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny.
>
> > Proving non-existence... how on earth would one DO that? "I don't see
> > it, therefore it doesn't exist"? Come on now!
>

> It's not just a matter of sight.-

Of course not. Well... not THESE days. But microscopes and
scientific theories as we have them today didn't exist for the vast
majority of the time that the earth and its inhabitants have existed.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:10:45 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:17 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> > > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> > >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> > >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> > >> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> > >> >> > "Uncle Vic" <addr...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >> >> One fine day in alt.atheism, yeahch...@gmail.com bloodied us up

> > > with
> > >> >> > this:
>
> > >> >> >> > I've never met an atheist that claims to have evidence of
> God's
> > >> >> >> > nonexistence
>
> > >> >> >> It depends on whether one is willing to throw the monkey off
> one's
> > >> >> >> shoulders for good. Absense of evidence is evidence of absense,
> > >> >> > therefore
> > >> >> >> no gods exist.
>
> > >> >> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
>
> > >> >> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
>
> > >> > That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
>
> > >> A cow is not a god.
>
> > > Perhaps not to you and me.
>
> > Or to anyone but the self-deluded.
>
> Your earlier claim was there are no gods.

Well, Death, technically, that is not his claim. His claim is that he
has no belief in gods, or that he believes in no gods.

> Now you say the self-deluded do in fact have gods.
> You remind me of an old wash-woman.

Anyone you care to tell us about? :-)

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:14:08 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote
> >>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> >> >> >> do not believe gods exist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists,
> > the logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.
> >> >
> >> > Science is based on a belief,
> >>
> >> Science is based on evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.
> >
> > Sounds like atheism to me, not science.
> >
> Sounds like science to me.

you say atheist don't believe in gods:
based on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.

Then you say science is:
based on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:18:40 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:25 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "ScottyFLL" <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
> > > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >> >> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
>
> > > >> >> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
>
> > > >> > That you have not heard of cows does not surprise me
>
> > > >> A cow is not a god.
>
> > > > Perhaps not to you and me.
>
> > > Or to anyone but the self-deluded.
>
> > > >> > considering the sheltered life you lead in your fantasy world.
>
> > > >> At least I'm not idiot enough to believe that a cow is a god.
>
> > > > OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?
>
> > > That a cow is not a god...
>
> > How do we scientifically prove this?
>
> I think you are confusing their selective use of the word science
> with the word science.

But you can see that that has to be the basis for my argument.

> Their version of science only disproves things, though no scientific fact
> of the findings are presented.

Science keeps finding things! New compounds, further reaches in the
universe.... I love it.

I went to a Lutheran college in Minneapolis and we had to take
theology. I KNEW I'd hate it.

But I didn't. I loved it, and I aced it.

Why?

Because it wasn't a course in Christianity. It was a course in
religion, religions throughout the world. And I could see some basics
common to the major ones:

1. Where did we come from

2. What are we NOT to do while we're here

3. Where do we go when we die

> They use science to justify that, the absence of evidence, don't ya know.-

And that would be the root of most agnosticism ("without knowledge").
A TRUE agnostic these days, however, is rather hard to find. Often an
atheist will claim to be agnostic so as not to appear to be too
radical, or to avoid a lengthy discussion, or to avoid the prejudice
that comes.

Being an atheist does NOT mean one thinks that illegal or unethical
behavior is OK. Interesting, that they abide by codes -- most codes
-- of society, without the fear of ending up burning in eternal
hellfire.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:22:52 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:35 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> > "juanjo" <jonpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

Maybe not organized, but individual. Same with MOST atheism: not
organized, but individual. MOST atheists don't gather in groups to
discuss atheism. (To take us back to our original point, however,
this is EXACTLY what the lawsuit was about.)

Some info on me: I went to some agnostic AA meetings in NYC. THEY
TALKED MORE ABOUT RELIGION THAN THEY DID IN ANY OF THE OTHER AA GROUPS
I ATTENDED!!!!

I only went to these a few times. I feel that religion is a personal
thing and I really don't like to discuss it much with groups. But
these people seemed very angry, and even as an agnostic at that time,
I just couldn't STAND how much they talked about religion!

Odd, huh?

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:24:36 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:56 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

The egg came first.

Mutation.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:25:30 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:06 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
wrote:

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9bLVi.12587$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> >> >>We have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do
> > for
> >> > God
> >> >> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.
>
> >> > I've seen Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny the Tooth Fairy
> >> > and Charleston Hesten in movies.
> >> > So ah, .......God really did talk to Moses after all, kewl.
>
> >> So you're saying that god is really George Burns?
>
> > Did you miss the movie?
>
> Did you miss your med dosage today?

HEY!!!! That's MY line!


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:34:12 PM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193771308.3...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

How many scientists are out there actively searching for gods?

Not KNOWING something existed before is a lot different than not having any
evidence for something's existence.

> They wouldn't search for
> things if they already knew them to exist,

If they didn't know something existed, then how did they know to search for
it?

> and they wouldn't find
> things they hadn't thought existed if what you say is correct.

At the point that they found it, they would have some evidence for its
existence, correct?

>
> Do you have a cite for this? I just don't think you're right. I just
> don't think it's scientific to say that, "I haven't seen this,
> therefore it doesn't exist."

Who said anything about not "seeing" it? The statement is if something
cannot be proven to exist, thent here is no reasonable basis to believe that
it does exist. That is, in light of ALL available evidence, no evidence can
be shown to prove something exists, then it is reasonable to believe that is
does not exist. Could there be new evidence surface tomorrow? Sure, but
as of this moment in time gods have the same standing as Santa Claus, the
Easter Bunny, Faeries, and Sasquatch.


>
> (And mind you -- this is one of those topics with which I can argue
> either side... Telling you what I really believe would fuck up my
> fun!! But I will... in time...)
>
>> >> > Science is still looking, whether scientists admit it or not.
>>
>> >> > Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>>
>> >> But it is the best evidence we have that it doesn't exist. The same
>> >> goes
>> >> for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and any other mythological entity
>> >> you
>> >> care to mention. Since there is no evidence that they actually
>> >> exist,
>> >> most
>> >> over the age of five or ten at the most simply accepts that they do
>> >> not
>> >> exist.
>>
>> > Naw.
>>
>> Yaw...
>
> We accept that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist (even though
> when I'm home for Easter, I STILL, at age 46, find an Easter basket!)
>
> We cannot PROVE that they don't exist.
>

There is no logical basis to show that they do exist. Which is why we
accept that they do not exist. There is no empirical evidence to show that
they have ever existed.

> There is no scientific formula to prove the non-existence of the
> Easter Bunny, especially in light of the fact that I keep getting
> Easter baskets and I never see who hides them.

The scientific formula is the lack of empirical evidence for their
existence.


>
>> > Science is still finding things previously not known to exist.
>>
>> After 6,000 years of research, one might imagine that someone would have
>> come up with some empirical evidence for the existence of gods before
>> now.
>> What's the hold up?
>
> I actually wrote a paper on this, espousing your view. Well... and my
> view... that non-existence can't be proved.
>
> PART of the problem here is that we are accepting Christian
> definitions for what "supreme being" means. In Christianity, this GOD
> has IMMENSE power, and cares about each of us. AND is the Creator.
>
> Try to deconstruct that a bit. Say that the "Creator" created a god,
> and that the Creator then vanished. That's a possibility (but not in
> Christianity). Say that this god IS NOT omnipotent. Say that this
> god is NOT all good....
>
> Say that this god does NOT care about each person individually...
>
> Do you see what I'm saying? You are ACCEPTING Christians' definition
> of their god, without considering that a power might exist that
> doesn't have these powers, or doesn't hold these powers for
> EVERYONE.

I suppose you agree with "cows are gods" theory. LOL!


>
>> > Does this mean these things didn't exist until the scientists found
>> > them? Of course not.
>>
>> We did not know that certain stars and planets existed, however there was
>> evidence for their existence in the movement of other stars and planets.
>
> Not in the year 3000 BC there wasn't. They didn't even fucking know
> that the earth circled the sun! Did Pluto exist in 3000 BC?

Yes it did, and if we lived in 3000 BC, you might have a point. People
believed in gods because they were too ignorant to understand the natural
world around them. Many are still handicapped in tha manner.


>
>> > Your conclusion comes from philosophy, not science.
>>
>> Nope, hard science.
>
> Show us. It's a simple request. If this is HARD science -- "proving"
> non-existence -- I think it's important that we should know exactly
> how this theory or "fact" works.

It's very clear to me. What is it about zero evidence that you aren't
getting?

Were they empirically testing for those causes? Again, not knowing
something does not equate to no evidence for.

>
> Do you REALLY think that civilization is scientifically advanced?
> Science as we know it is VERY new. I'd LOVE to come back in 100 years
> to see what's going on!

I'd like to go back to 1916 and visit my 2nd Great Grandfather's Candy and
Ice Cream Shop on Michigan Avenue in downtown Detroit. See the old city
before it was left to the jackals. Probably not going to happen though.

>
>> >> We've been waiting what, five or six
>> >> thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing.
>>
>> > I am with you on this. But not showing oneself does not mean that one
>> > does not exist. Not being found does not mean that one does not
>> > exist.
>>
>> Where's the proof of his existence?
>
> I don't have any. I also have no proof for the Big Bang.

Have you read or been familiar with COBI?

>
> See, the Big Bang theory takes us back to a place before things
> existed.... to ... a place where things existed!! Same place as the
> story of the Christian god. I asked at a very young age: "Where did
> God come from?"

There's plenty of material available on the web and at your local library on
the Big Bang Theory.

>
> BB takes me to the same place. Where did these things that CREATED
> the BB come from? Where did the ROOM for the expansion of the
> universe come from? I know they say it was a "vacuum", but isn't a
> vacuum a THING?
>
>> > Your argument is philosophical and not scientific. In the course of
>> > human events, the atom was recently discovered.
>>
>> But evidence for its existence has always been there.
>
> Not back in 3000 BC it wasn't.

Again, not found or not thought of is not the same as no evidence for.
It's not like god(s) is some sort of brand new theory. It is a "known
condition" that has been around a long, long, time, and still no evidence
for the existence of such exists.

>
>> You cannot have solid
>> objects without atoms.
>
> They didn't care in 3000 BC.

They didn't have a lot of things in 3000 BC because they didn't know about
them, test for them, or think about them. Again, lack of knowledge of is
not the same as lack of evidence for.

>
>> That does not mean
>>
>> > that it didn't exist before it was found.
>>
>> Touch a nearby wall. There, atoms exist. Can you do the same with gods?
>
> *I* certainly can't. But gods are supposed to be spiritual, not
> material.

So, you don't even know what they are made of?

>
>> The evidence that atoms existed well before mankind knew what the basic
>> building blocks for that wall would be.
>
> Of COURSE they did. But people didn't know about them.

Ah!! Now you're getting it! How long have people known about god(s)??

> And when they
> were first theorized, people couldn't prove their existence.

That's why they called it a theory I suppose. Should we start referring to
god as a theory?


>
>> You're confusing not knowing
>> something exists with lack of evidence for that something.
>
> No. I'm saying that science is in its infancy. For many of us, it
> has become the de facto religion. But science has yet to be able to
> PROVE non-existence. So far as I know.

I never said it did prove non-existence. I have said, and I maintain, that
since there is a lack of evidence for the existence of god(s), it is
reasonable to assume that god(s) do not exist. I would think that if the
world was full of empirical evidence that god(s) indeed existed, and I made
the statement of, "Since there is a plethura of evidence for the existence
of god(s), it is reasonable to assume that god(s) exist", that not many
people would have a problem with that logic. The contrary statement seems
to set people off though. Strange.


>
>> >> We
>> >> have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we do for
>> >> God
>> >> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.-
>>
>> > Sure, the evidence for NON-existence of God or gods is the same as the
>> > evidence for non-existence of Santa and the Easter Bunny.
>>
>> > Proving non-existence... how on earth would one DO that? "I don't see
>> > it, therefore it doesn't exist"? Come on now!
>>
>> It's not just a matter of sight.-
>
> Of course not. Well... not THESE days. But microscopes and
> scientific theories as we have them today didn't exist for the vast
> majority of the time that the earth and its inhabitants have existed.
>

Again, you're confusing that which is unknown, with that which is unproven.


ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:35:18 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 4:14 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> > > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote

>
> > >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> > >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> > >> >> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
> > >> >> >> do not believe gods exist.
>
> > >> >> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists,
> > > the logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.
>
> > >> > Science is based on a belief,
>
> > >> Science is based on evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.
>
> > > Sounds like atheism to me, not science.
>
> > Sounds like science to me.
>
> you say atheist don't believe in gods:
> based on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.

Atheists don't believe in gods regardless. In actuality, it has
nothing to do with evidence or lack or evidence, per se. The
individual makes up his own mind.

> Then you say science is:

> based on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.-

Good point!

Science is based on EVIDENCE, and in the absence of evidence, a good
scientist will tell you "there is no evidence". The good scientist
will NOT tell you "this doesn't exist because we lack the evidence".

(Death: I can't post to alt.flame.fucking.faggots -- must you post
there? don't the same people post here?)

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:35:55 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote
>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > Oh....ok, got ya. You require proof but offer none.
> >>
> >> I'm not the one that cares about whether you believe in gods or not.
> >
> > Then you don't mind leaving this discussion?
> >
> You first.
>

LOL, I didn't make the boast that I didn't care.
You say, you don't care, leave and prove it.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:36:13 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:eoLVi.12593$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>>
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote
>> >>
>> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >> >>Atheists do not believe no gods exist, they
>> >> >> >> do not believe gods exist.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Not at all. Since there is zero evidence that a God or God exists,
>> > the logical conclusion that no God or God exists. This is science.
>> >> >
>> >> > Science is based on a belief,
>> >>
>> >> Science is based on evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.
>> >
>> > Sounds like atheism to me, not science.
>> >
>> Sounds like science to me.
>
> you say atheist don't believe in gods:

Did I? Can you quote me on that?

> based on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.
>
> Then you say science is:
> based on the evidence, or in this case, the lack of evidence.

And?

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:37:56 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:GILVi.12607$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

You first.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:37:35 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > The Hindu laugh at your ass-inine statement.
>
> The Hindu Gods also do not exist.
>
In your opinion.


Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:39:17 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > Your earlier claim was there are no gods.
> > Now you say the self-deluded do in fact have gods.
> > You remind me of an old wash-woman.
>
> I said the self-deluded believe that cows are gods.
>
Again you say, the self-deluded do in fact have gods, ok
but I got it the first time.

> >> > OK so you are not a Hindu, was that your only point?
> >>
> >> That a cow is not a god... Yes.
> >
> > In your opinion.
> >
>
> Prove that a cow is a god.
>

Open a Macdonald's in Bijapur City.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:39:59 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:eKLVi.12609$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

In reality. You should try some.

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:41:11 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:QLLVi.12611$a9.1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>>
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Your earlier claim was there are no gods.
>> > Now you say the self-deluded do in fact have gods.
>> > You remind me of an old wash-woman.
>>
>> I said the self-deluded believe that cows are gods.
>>
> Again you say, the self-deluded do in fact have gods, ok
> but I got it the first time.
>

I said the self-deluded believe that cows are gods. Your spin on that
nonwithstanding.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:41:36 PM10/30/07
to

"ScottyFLL" <scott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Well, Death, technically, that is not his claim. His claim is that he
> has no belief in gods, or that he believes in no gods.
>

Based on the scientific proof that none exist.


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:45:54 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:%NLVi.12613$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

Based on a logical conclusion from the fact that there is zero evidence to
support the existence of god(s). You should spend less time trying to spin
what I am saying, and more time addressing what it is I am saying.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:45:47 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>
> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
> >
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> It can be scientifically inferred that if something cannot be proven
to
> >> exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does
exist.
> >>
> >
> > Science can't say if the chicken or the egg came first,
>
> Because neither did.
>
It can be scientifically inferred that if something can not be proven

Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:48:41 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:WRLVi.12616$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

But since it is a scientific fact that both the chicken and the egg exists,
and that the chicken evolved from a previous species, the chicken and the
egg evolved simultaneously, and neither came first.

Death

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:50:41 PM10/30/07
to

"Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
news:xgLVi.37868$eY.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
nah, that dodge won't play here.
A movie was all you needed earlier for proof-
don't you believe George Burns is God as stated
in the movie?


Scruffy McScruffovitch

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 3:52:41 PM10/30/07
to

" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:wWLVi.12619$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
> news:xgLVi.37868$eY.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> news:9bLVi.12587$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scru...@FAM.NET> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >>We have more evidence for Harvey, the big invisible rabbit than we
> do
>> > for
>> >> > God
>> >> >> or Gods. At least Harvey was in a movie.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I've seen Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny the Tooth Fairy
>> >> > and Charleston Hesten in movies.
>> >> > So ah, .......God really did talk to Moses after all, kewl.
>> >>
>> >> So you're saying that god is really George Burns?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Did you miss the movie?
>> >
>> Did you miss your med dosage today?
>>
> nah, that dodge won't play here.

It's not a dodge, it's a genuine concern. You really need to be supervised
by a physician.

> A movie was all you needed earlier for proof-
> don't you believe George Burns is God as stated
> in the movie?

The question is, do you?

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:25:08 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:34 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>

wrote:
> "ScottyFLL" <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> > Then why do scientists keep searching for things -- and finding OTHER


> > things that they hadn't known existed?
>
> How many scientists are out there actively searching for gods?

They are searching for our origin. Our genesis. Where did we COME
from? (We'll leave the "Why are we HERE?" for later.)

Our origin is what religions try to explain. Most major religions
attribute our origin to a god. Science is looking for our origin.
Science is looking -- while denying it -- for a god.

> Not KNOWING something existed before is a lot different than not having any
> evidence for something's existence.

True.

And MY point was that not all that exists has been discovered.

Are you having a problem with THAT?

> > They wouldn't search for
> > things if they already knew them to exist,
>
> If they didn't know something existed, then how did they know to search for
> it?

Are you fucking SERIOUS? Scientists are ALWAYS finding things they
hadn't expected!!!

> > and they wouldn't find
> > things they hadn't thought existed if what you say is correct.
>
> At the point that they found it, they would have some evidence for its
> existence, correct?

Yes. Finding something might be called "proof positive".

> Do you have a cite for this? I just don't think you're right. I just
> > don't think it's scientific to say that, "I haven't seen this,
> > therefore it doesn't exist."
>
> Who said anything about not "seeing" it? The statement is if something
> cannot be proven to exist, thent here is no reasonable basis to believe that
> it does exist. That is, in light of ALL available evidence, no evidence can
> be shown to prove something exists, then it is reasonable to believe that is
> does not exist.

And, as I mentioned before, this is simply not true.

> Could there be new evidence surface tomorrow? Sure, but
> as of this moment in time gods have the same standing as Santa Claus, the
> Easter Bunny, Faeries, and Sasquatch.

And in science, we want proof.

And I have asked you to cite proof that Santa doesn't exist, or that
God doesn't exist, and you can't do it.

Because it isn't science.

> >> Yaw...
>
> > We accept that Santa and the Easter Bunny don't exist (even though
> > when I'm home for Easter, I STILL, at age 46, find an Easter basket!)
>
> > We cannot PROVE that they don't exist.
>
> There is no logical basis to show that they do exist.

Well, do you want to use logic, or science? Logic is a discipline of
philosophy.

> Which is why we
> accept that they do not exist.

I am not saying that they DO exist.

I am saying that there is not proof that they DON'T exist.

If you can FIND such proof, cite it. It's pretty important, dontcha
think? If a scientist has proved the non-existence of gods?!??!?!??

> There is no empirical evidence to show that
> they have ever existed.

No one would know how even to study this. The "empirical evidence" is
non-existent. Unlike the gods you claim don't exist, it is much
easier to prove that there is zero evidence AGAINST them.

> > There is no scientific formula to prove the non-existence of the
> > Easter Bunny, especially in light of the fact that I keep getting
> > Easter baskets and I never see who hides them.
>
> The scientific formula is the lack of empirical evidence for their
> existence.

Incorrect. See above. If you can cite a scientific study proving the
non-existence of the Easter Bunny, please do so.

> >> > Science is still finding things previously not known to exist.
>
> >> After 6,000 years of research, one might imagine that someone would have
> >> come up with some empirical evidence for the existence of gods before
> >> now.
> >> What's the hold up?
>
> > I actually wrote a paper on this, espousing your view. Well... and my
> > view... that non-existence can't be proved.
>
> > PART of the problem here is that we are accepting Christian
> > definitions for what "supreme being" means. In Christianity, this GOD
> > has IMMENSE power, and cares about each of us. AND is the Creator.
>
> > Try to deconstruct that a bit. Say that the "Creator" created a god,
> > and that the Creator then vanished. That's a possibility (but not in
> > Christianity). Say that this god IS NOT omnipotent. Say that this
> > god is NOT all good....
>
> > Say that this god does NOT care about each person individually...
>
> > Do you see what I'm saying? You are ACCEPTING Christians' definition
> > of their god, without considering that a power might exist that
> > doesn't have these powers, or doesn't hold these powers for
> > EVERYONE.
>
> I suppose you agree with "cows are gods" theory. LOL!

Just because I ask you to clarify a position does not mean I agree
with what was presented to you.

Prove to us that cows are not gods.

I REALLY think you need to work on your definition of "god".

> Not in the year 3000 BC there wasn't. They didn't even fucking
know
> > that the earth circled the sun! Did Pluto exist in 3000 BC?
>
> Yes it did, and if we lived in 3000 BC, you might have a point.

Not in science I wouldn't.

Because science says that Pluto DID exist in 3000 BC. And YOU are
saying that, since there was no scientific PROOF of it, it did NOT
exist in 3000 BC.

It either existed then, or it did not.

Only one of those statements is true.

Which is it?

> People
> believed in gods because they were too ignorant to understand the natural
> world around them. Many are still handicapped in tha manner.

I have to agree with you on this. But knowing WHY people believed in
gods proves neither their existence or non-existence.

> >> > Your conclusion comes from philosophy, not science.
>
> >> Nope, hard science.

>


> >> Not many die of unknown causes anymore.
>
> > Not many?
>
> > But what about 100 years ago? They didn't know the cause. Didn't the
> > cause exist? Haven't we found the cause SINCE then?
>
> Were they empirically testing for those causes? Again, not knowing
> something does not equate to no evidence for.

Well, indeed, at some point they were "empirically" testing.

I'm sure that in that process they found a number of things that
couldn't be proved or were proved wrong. For example, penicillin,
miracle drug that it is, does not cure cancer or menstrual cramps.

> > Do you REALLY think that civilization is scientifically advanced?
> > Science as we know it is VERY new. I'd LOVE to come back in 100 years
> > to see what's going on!
>
> I'd like to go back to 1916 and visit my 2nd Great Grandfather's Candy and
> Ice Cream Shop on Michigan Avenue in downtown Detroit. See the old city
> before it was left to the jackals. Probably not going to happen though.

EEEK!!!!!!!!!! BACK in time???????? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT ARE
YOU THINKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No air conditioning! No cell
phones! Are you INSANE, MAN???

(Just kidding here, of course.)

> >> >> We've been waiting what, five or six
> >> >> thousand years for some proof of this God fellow, and still nothing.
>
> >> > I am with you on this. But not showing oneself does not mean that one
> >> > does not exist. Not being found does not mean that one does not
> >> > exist.
>
> >> Where's the proof of his existence?
>
> > I don't have any. I also have no proof for the Big Bang.
>
> Have you read or been familiar with COBI?

No. And I could look it up right now, and pretend I was familiar, but
that would be unfair.

> > See, the Big Bang theory takes us back to a place before things
> > existed.... to ... a place where things existed!! Same place as the
> > story of the Christian god. I asked at a very young age: "Where did
> > God come from?"
>
> There's plenty of material available on the web and at your local library on
> the Big Bang Theory.

Aren't there OTHER theories?

> > BB takes me to the same place. Where did these things that CREATED
> > the BB come from? Where did the ROOM for the expansion of the
> > universe come from? I know they say it was a "vacuum", but isn't a
> > vacuum a THING?
>
> >> > Your argument is philosophical and not scientific. In the course of
> >> > human events, the atom was recently discovered.
>
> >> But evidence for its existence has always been there.
>
> > Not back in 3000 BC it wasn't.
>
> Again, not found or not thought of is not the same as no evidence for.

In 3000 BC, there WAS NO EVIDENCE FOR.

Finding EVIDENCE FOR has increased with technology.

> It's not like god(s) is some sort of brand new theory.

But one wonders, then, why nearly universal. (Atheism also is nearly
universal.)

> It is a "known
> condition" that has been around a long, long, time, and still no evidence
> for the existence of such exists.

I AGREE with you! But not having evidence of the EXISTENCE of
something does NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE its NON-EXISTENCE.

> >> You cannot have solid
> >> objects without atoms.
>
> > They didn't care in 3000 BC.
>
> They didn't have a lot of things in 3000 BC because they didn't know about
> them, test for them, or think about them. Again, lack of knowledge of is
> not the same as lack of evidence for.

But YOU have no evidence for the non-existence of God or gods! You
are simply using the Christian definition, and in effect being rather
THEIST.

OPEN YOUR MIND.

"GOD" might not be what the Christians THINK he is!

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:30:37 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:41 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
wrote:

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:QLLVi.12611$a9.1...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > Your earlier claim was there are no gods.
> >> > Now you say the self-deluded do in fact have gods.
> >> > You remind me of an old wash-woman.
>
> >> I said the self-deluded believe that cows are gods.
>
> > Again you say, the self-deluded do in fact have gods, ok
> > but I got it the first time.
>
> I said the self-deluded believe that cows are gods. Your spin on that
> nonwithstanding.

If gods don't exist, what is your problem here?

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:31:56 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 4:41 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "ScottyFLL" <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> > Well, Death, technically, that is not his claim. His claim is that he
> > has no belief in gods, or that he believes in no gods.
>
> Based on the scientific proof that none exist.

There is no such proof, as I said before. There also is no proof that
gods DO exist.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:34:06 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:45 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
wrote:

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:%NLVi.12613$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > "ScottyFLL" <scotty33...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> >> Well, Death, technically, that is not his claim. His claim is that he
> >> has no belief in gods, or that he believes in no gods.
>
> > Based on the scientific proof that none exist.
>
> Based on a logical conclusion from the fact that there is zero evidence to
> support the existence of god(s). You should spend less time trying to spin
> what I am saying, and more time addressing what it is I am saying.

There is no conclusion in logic that no evidence = non-existence.

And BTW, LOGIC falls under the discipline of PHILOSOPHY. Thank you
very much.

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:35:21 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 4:45 pm, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote:
> "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> > " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> > > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> > >> It can be scientifically inferred that if something cannot be proven
> to
> > >> exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does
> exist.
>
> > > Science can't say if the chicken or the egg came first,
>
> > Because neither did.
>
> It can be scientifically inferred that if something can not be proven
> to exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does exist.-

You got him there!

If I hid, and science could not prove my existence, would I exist?

ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:36:34 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 3:48 pm, "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET>
wrote:

> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> news:WRLVi.12616$a9....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > "Scruffy McScruffovitch" <Scruff...@FAM.NET> wrote in message

>
> >> >> It can be scientifically inferred that if something cannot be proven
> > to
> >> >> exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does
> > exist.
>
> >> > Science can't say if the chicken or the egg came first,
>
> >> Because neither did.
>
> > It can be scientifically inferred that if something can not be proven
> > to exist, then there is no reasonable basis to believe that it does exist.
>
> But since it is a scientific fact that both the chicken and the egg exists,
> and that the chicken evolved from a previous species, the chicken and the
> egg evolved simultaneously, and neither came first.-

The egg existed before the chicken did. The chicken CAME from the
egg. The chicken would NOT have existed without said egg. THEREFORE,
the EGG came before said CHICKEN.

Kenneth Doyle

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 4:54:42 PM10/30/07
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:15:59 -0600, Death wrote:

> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
>>
>> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism"
> be
>> >> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as
>> >> >xianity has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it


>> >> >consists of
> a
>> >> >belief system
>> >>

>> >> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.
>>
>> >Am I to take that on faith?
>>
>> Is lack of an apple an apple? An "apple system"?
>>
>>
> Why do you insist on asking me about a lack of, that is your religion,
> don't you know?

Asking questions about the lack of religion is a religion called atheism?

>> Is baldness a hair color?
>>
>> Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
>>
>> >Do you believe in air ?
>>
>> Theism isn't a belief in air, it's a belief in gods. Atheism is LACK
>> OF belief in gods.
>
> Why do you keep using your religion to show your lack of religion?

You just asked a question about lack of religion. According to your
definition, you're now an atheist. See how retarded you are?


ScottyFLL

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 5:12:35 PM10/30/07
to
On Oct 30, 4:54 pm, Kenneth Doyle <nob...@notmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:15:59 -0600, Death wrote:
> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>
> >> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
>
> >> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>
> >> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <d...@nugget.org> wrote:
>
> >> >> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism"
> > be
> >> >> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as
> >> >> >xianity has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it
> >> >> >consists of
> > a
> >> >> >belief system
>
> >> >> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.
>
> >> >Am I to take that on faith?
>
> >> Is lack of an apple an apple? An "apple system"?
>
> > Why do you insist on asking me about a lack of, that is your religion,
> > don't you know?
>
> Asking questions about the lack of religion is a religion called atheism?
>
> >> Is baldness a hair color?
>
> >> Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
>
> >> >Do you believe in air ?
>
> >> Theism isn't a belief in air, it's a belief in gods. Atheism is LACK
> >> OF belief in gods.
>
> > Why do you keep using your religion to show your lack of religion?
>
> You just asked a question about lack of religion. According to your
> definition, you're now an atheist. See how retarded you are?-

I think a "lack of religion" is different from a "lack in belief of a
supernatural being", don't you?

Al Klein

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 5:58:29 PM10/30/07
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:53:18 -0600, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

>"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> bloodied us up


>> > "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message

>> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:

>> >> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism" be
>> >> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
>> >> >has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of a
>> >> >belief system

>> >> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.

>> >

>> You don't have to. It's reality. Is not collecting baseball cards a
>> hobby?

>Yes, it is commonly known as atheism.

Not collecting baseball cards is known as atheism?

>> No. I *know* air exists, and I can prove it. See the difference?

>No, I don't see the difference because you didn't prove air exists
>so I could see. I guess you would call your proof:
>not collecting baseball cards.

How about we put you into an airless room for a few hours, complete
with some baseball cards you can choose to not collect. Then, when we
return, we can discuss the proof of air. Okay?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln

Al Klein

unread,
Oct 30, 2007, 5:59:10 PM10/30/07
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:15:59 -0600, " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>
wrote:

>
>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>

>> " Death" <De...@yourdoor.net>


>>
>> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:13 GMT, dank <da...@nugget.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The religionists have long argued that atheistic "secular humanism"
>be
>> >> >treated as a religion with the same rights or lack thereof as xianity
>> >> >has in public schools. Atheism is a religion in that it consists of
>a
>> >> >belief system
>> >>
>> >> Lack of belief is neither belief nor a belief system.
>>

>> >Am I to take that on faith?
>>
>> Is lack of an apple an apple? An "apple system"?
>>
>
>Why do you insist on asking me about a lack of,
>that is your religion, don't you know?
>

>> Is baldness a hair color?
>>
>> Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
>>
>> >Do you believe in air ?
>>
>> Theism isn't a belief in air, it's a belief in gods. Atheism is LACK
>> OF belief in gods.
>
>Why do you keep using your religion to show your lack of religion?
>

Why do you keep trying to prove what an insipid bore you are?

<plonkage>

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages