Atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel

[Mulhid Murtad]

i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Feb 6, 3:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy

A counter funny: Theism is a religion like on is a TV channel.

[Mulhid Murtad]

so your religion is whatever comes on the television?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Æzen]

On Feb 6, 8:41 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

The best Theism is when you stare into the static... otherwise it's a
load of shit and commercialism.

[Duke of Omnium]

On Feb 6, 3:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy

I always say that atheism is a religion like health is a disease.

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy

If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right. But it doesn't, and
atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
whether it's the active denial of God's existence, or the adoration of
nature, science, etc. So it's true that, like religion, atheists
often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.

A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
other forms of organization.

Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.

I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
considered a religion.

[Drafterman]

On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
> whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right.

It does.

> But it doesn't, and
> atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> whether it's the active denial of God's existence, or the adoration of
> nature, science, etc.   So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.

Which has nothing to do with the atheism. Any beliefs outside of "I
don't believe god exists" is tangential to atheism. That such beliefs
may be common among some subset of atheists is irrelevant.

>
> A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
> beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
> aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
> other forms of organization.
>
> Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.

Even if we were to accept this definition, that would only make
"American Atheists" a religion, not "atheism."
After all, "theism" is not a religion. Christianity, however, is.

>
> I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> considered a religion.

Because, in all cases, it isn't.

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 7, 8:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> > If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
> > whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right.
>
> It does.

? Not if you're using the commonly accepted definition - which also
includes strong/positive atheists - who actively deny God's
existence.

>
> > But it doesn't, and
> > atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> > whether it's the active denial of God's existence, or the adoration of
> > nature, science, etc.   So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> > often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>
> Which has nothing to do with the atheism. Any beliefs outside of "I
> don't believe god exists" is tangential to atheism. That such beliefs
> may be common among some subset of atheists is irrelevant.

They are not merely common. They are common and caused by the same
shared core belief among strong atheists (most atheists, in my
experience) - that God does not exist. They are beliefs which build
upon the same foundation - a 'belief system'.

>
>
>
> > A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
> > beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
> > aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
> > other forms of organization.
>
> > Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> > have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> > fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.
>
> Even if we were to accept this definition, that would only make
> "American Atheists" a religion, not "atheism."
> After all, "theism" is not a religion. Christianity, however, is.

It would apply equally to all atheists. Christians who do not have a
church, or who do not visit a church - are still Christians, on
account of the fact that Christianity, generally speaking, does
encompass rituals of behavior, and collective gatherings. Likewise
for atheists do not visit AA/Freethinker meetings.

[Drafterman]

On Feb 7, 12:58 pm, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> > > If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
> > > whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right.
>
> > It does.
>
>  ?   Not if you're using the commonly accepted definition - which also
> includes strong/positive atheists - who actively deny God's
> existence.

No, I did not take it such an absurd degree.

>
>
>
> > > But it doesn't, and
> > > atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> > > whether it's the active denial of God's existence, or the adoration of
> > > nature, science, etc.   So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> > > often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>
> > Which has nothing to do with the atheism. Any beliefs outside of "I
> > don't believe god exists" is tangential to atheism. That such beliefs
> > may be common among some subset of atheists is irrelevant.
>
> They are not merely common. They are common and caused by the same
> shared core belief among strong atheists (most atheists, in my
> experience)  - that God does not exist. They are beliefs which build
> upon the same foundation - a 'belief system'.

I am suspicious of your ability to speak so authoritatively on the
inner workings of the belief system of millions of other people and
that you have no first hand knowledge of.

Personally, my atheism is a result of who I am. My beliefs regarding
atheism are part of, not the source of, my belief system. To me,
atheism is a conclusion, not a premise. In my experience. At this
point, I'd ask for justification for your assertion here.

>
>
>
> > > A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
> > > beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
> > > aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
> > > other forms of organization.
>
> > > Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> > > have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> > > fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.
>
> > Even if we were to accept this definition, that would only make
> > "American Atheists" a religion, not "atheism."
> > After all, "theism" is not a religion. Christianity, however, is.
>
> It would apply equally to all atheists.

No it wouldn't. I'm not a member of the "American Atheists." I do not
necessarily agree with their beliefs and values, I do not attend their
meetings, I do not (knowingly and purposefully) congregate with
"American Atheists" for the purposes of the "American Atheists."
Whatever label you apply to the "American Atheists" is not
automatically applied to be, simply because I share some attribute
with them.

> Christians who do not have a
> church, or who do not visit a church - are still Christians, on
> account of the fact that Christianity, generally speaking,  does
> encompass rituals of behavior, and collective gatherings.  Likewise
> for atheists do not visit AA/Freethinker meetings.

No, not likewise because it would not be true to say that all theists
are subject to the rituals and behavior of Christianity.

Likewise, not all atheists are subject to the rituals and behavior of
some organized group of atheists.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > > considered a religion.
>

> > Because, in all cases, it isn't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 7, 12:13 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:58 pm, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 8:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> > > > If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
> > > > whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right.
>
> > > It does.
>
> >  ?   Not if you're using the commonly accepted definition - which also
> > includes strong/positive atheists - who actively deny God's
> > existence.
>
> No, I did not take it such an absurd degree.

This "absurd degree" is considered standard in most academic or even
popular books dealing with atheism. Your definition is unique.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > But it doesn't, and
> > > > atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> > > > whether it's the active denial of God's existence, or the adoration of
> > > > nature, science, etc.   So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> > > > often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>
> > > Which has nothing to do with the atheism. Any beliefs outside of "I
> > > don't believe god exists" is tangential to atheism. That such beliefs
> > > may be common among some subset of atheists is irrelevant.
>
> > They are not merely common. They are common and caused by the same
> > shared core belief among strong atheists (most atheists, in my
> > experience)  - that God does not exist. They are beliefs which build
> > upon the same foundation - a 'belief system'.
>
> I am suspicious of your ability to speak so authoritatively on the
> inner workings of the belief system of millions of other people and
> that you have no first hand knowledge of.

I do have first hand knowledge of atheists (??) - but the definitions
I'm using are standard when dealing the topic of atheism, and are the
first distinction made in the definition of atheism on wikipedia.

You don't have to be an atheist your entire life to know that the
question of religion and God is a fundamental question - the answer to
which has a profound impact on a great deal of other important
questions, values, and life philosophy. Even if your atheist beliefs
have no impact on your current values/etc - the mere fact that you are
atheist, and not religious - is a fundamental change , a frame that
changes your other beliefs - directly or indirectly.

Which is not what I'm saying, and it's not required by my statements.
A person who believes in Christ as the prime author or figure in their
religion would be 'Christian' - including Christians who never go to
church, rarely or never take Communion, etc. The mere fact that you
are different in many ways, and do not visit a local church - doesn't
mean you don't qualify under the general religious heading of
'Christianity' - or, atheism.

[zencycle]

On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> considered a religion.

That's because you're an idiot.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.
>
> I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> considered a religion.

There are theist organizations too. Should theism be considered a
religion?

[dillan]

Well, that's an apt analogy indeed.
Atheism has no usefulness whatsoever.
IMHO, It's just make empty shells out of people.

[Observer]

Observer
I fail to see why religion should be considered at all.

Psychonomist

[JTB]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM, dillan <dfer...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, that's an apt analogy indeed.
Atheism has no usefulness whatsoever.
IMHO, It's just make empty shells out of people.

Why would you think so?
 

[dillan]

On Feb 8, 12:13 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, that's an apt analogy indeed.
> > Atheism has no usefulness whatsoever.
> > IMHO, It's just make empty shells out of people.
>
> Why would you think so?
>

Think about it, what is the point of atheism? It stands for nothing,
it promotes nothing. It does nothing.
I help with nothing, it has no benefit to human condition, or to their
health.

Atheism is actually the art of doing nothing, and complaining about
people who do. (I think)

[JTB]

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:49 AM, dillan <dfer...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 8, 12:13 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, that's an apt analogy indeed.
> > Atheism has no usefulness whatsoever.
> > IMHO, It's just make empty shells out of people.
>
> Why would you think so?
>

Think about it, what is the point of atheism? It stands for nothing,
it promotes nothing. It does nothing.
I help with nothing, it has no benefit to human condition, or to their
health.

The work of many atheist scientists does not impress you?
 

Atheism is actually the art of doing nothing, and complaining about
people who do. (I think)

What would impress you more (as a god):

1) A Christian being obedient and doing a kind-hearted act, looking forward hopefully to a later reward;

2) An atheist being disobedient and yet doing a kind-hearted act with no expectation of any later reward.

Do you know of any Christians who go about doing kind-hearted acts who *do not* hope for any sort of heavenly reward?

Might you be able to understand why, to many an atheist, it might be the theists who could appear to be predictable, empty shells? Merely doing good for the sake of a reward and out of fear of punishment? Certainly not all atheists think this way, but could it not at the very least be *understood* why some might?

Dillan, I wonder if you are able to imagine what it might actually be like to be an atheist who persevere against life's challenges knowing that there is no "father-like," benevolent force guiding, watching, and caring for the one? And yet at the same time to feel an honest love and/or empathy for one's family and/or fellow man? To honestly wish them well in their endeavors and to desire to help them for their own sakes? To make challenging moral decisions with the knowledge that there are no scales balancing the good deeds against the bad, no heavenly reward, or guardian angel, or karma, or any other payout. To nevertheless pursue a good action for its own sake, for the sake of the other involved, for the hope of the betterment of one's fellows/friends?

If this is a pointless, hollow pursuit, kindly explain why doing all of the above with the primary ambition of attaining Heaven is all that much more noteworthy?

Regards,

Jelrak TB
 

[dillan]

On Feb 8, 5:11 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:49 AM, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 12:13 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, that's an apt analogy indeed.
> > > > Atheism has no usefulness whatsoever.
> > > > IMHO, It's just make empty shells out of people.
>
> > > Why would you think so?
>
> > Think about it, what is the point of atheism? It stands for nothing,
> > it promotes nothing. It does nothing.
> > I help with nothing, it has no benefit to human condition, or to their
> > health.
>
> The work of many atheist scientists does not impress you?
>

There are and were many scientists that were/are theists too. Neither
is the cause for their success.

>
> > Atheism is actually the art of doing nothing, and complaining about
> > people who do. (I think)
>
> What would impress you more (as a god):
>
> 1) A Christian being obedient and doing a kind-hearted act, looking forward
> hopefully to a later reward;
>
> 2) An atheist being disobedient and yet doing a kind-hearted act with no
> expectation of any later reward.

I think you are trying to make qualitative argument based on
intentions vs actions.
That was no my point.
As a set of beliefs, for one reason or another, theism has done a lot
of good (as well as bad for sure)
As a belief system, it encourages people to do what right (however
they define it)
As a belief system, it gives hope to people who are down and out.
As a belief system, it make you stronger by having other people share
your grief of happiness.

Atheism promotes nothing. It does nothing.
But I do understand you point. And I know that most atheists are fine
people who are kind and generous.
But that is not a result of their lack of belief. That's my point.

[JTB]

Could it not also empower one to encourage people to do what the one interprets "right" to be to the detriment of others? [eg. plural marriages to underage girls]
 

As a belief system, it gives hope to people who are down and out.

Could it not also provide a false sense of security and the illusion that problems may be solved passively? [as with prayer]
 

As a belief system, it make you stronger by having other people share
your grief of happiness.

Could it not also harm them as it condemns outsiders and allows even members of given congregations capable of inferring judgments based upon others who differ in their interpretation and degree of commitment to the faith; allowing an excuse to mute one's sympathies? ["They don't go to church so no wonder that happened to them!"]
 

Atheism promotes nothing.

Could it not be stated to be a vision of reality as it truly is to those who profess it? Is it not advantageous to examine things as they truly are if one believes such to be the truth?
 

It does nothing.

Could it not free one from many conflicting emotions such as guilt, unworthiness, futility, angst, and hypocrisy?
 

But I do understand you point. And I know that most atheists are fine
people who are kind and generous.
But that is not a result of their lack of belief. That's my point.

If I were to agree that the character of an individual is not resolved from being either theist or atheist, would it be fair to question what makes the choice of atheism an empty one and theism a full one?
 

[dillan]

On Feb 8, 6:59 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

That's true, but we're not talking about the ills of religion. We are
talking about the impotence of atheism.
It's easy to not to anything and say we didn't do any harm. The fact
is, you (atheism) has done no good, either. Nothing at all. Humanity
survived and thrived with absolutely no help from atheism.

> > As a belief system, it gives hope to people who are down and out.
>
> Could it not also provide a false sense of security and the illusion that
> problems may be solved passively? [as with prayer]

Of course. But that's like saying a knife can also be used for
killing. THe purpose of a knife is to make wonderful creations.

> > As a belief system, it make you stronger by having other people share
> > your grief of happiness.
>
> Could it not also harm them as it condemns outsiders and allows even members
> of given congregations capable of inferring judgments based upon others who
> differ in their interpretation and degree of commitment to the faith;
> allowing an excuse to mute one's sympathies? ["They don't go to church so no
> wonder that happened to them!"]

All you say is true.

>
>
> > Atheism promotes nothing.
>
> Could it not be stated to be a vision of reality as it truly is to those who
> profess it? Is it not advantageous to examine things as they truly are if
> one believes such to be the truth?

Perhaps, But couldn't the same be said about theism?
But as it stands, compared to theism, atheism is like an "off"
channel.
It has no measurable benefits to the human condition.

> > It does nothing.
>
> Could it not free one from many conflicting emotions such as guilt,
> unworthiness, futility, angst, and hypocrisy?

So can religion. Infact, especially religion.

> > But I do understand you point. And I know that most atheists are fine
> > people who are kind and generous.
> > But that is not a result of their lack of belief. That's my point.
>
> If I were to agree that the character of an individual is not resolved from
> being either theist or atheist, would it be fair to question what makes the
> choice of atheism an empty one and theism a full one?
>

I'm not questioning the choice. I'm questioning the results.

Anyway, This is how I feel. I may be wrong. But I see the good of
religion everyday. Measurable good. Changing people's lives good.
Giving people hope. These are real benefits. Doing and believing in
nothing can't replace that.

Like, I said, this is my view. I doubt any discussion with you can
change that view. It's based on seeing results in people's lives. Not
based on some abstract discussion. You should know this, If you wish
to proceed. If you do, I'll do my best to respond.

[JTB]

Certainly it could.
 

But as it stands, compared to theism, atheism is like an "off"
channel.
It has no measurable benefits to the human condition.

Would you consider that atheism could serve at the very least to free an individual from feeling coerced into doing good deeds out of fear of punishment (a definition of slavery) to doing good for its own sake (a description of freedom)?

> > It does nothing.
>
> Could it not free one from many conflicting emotions such as guilt,
> unworthiness, futility, angst, and hypocrisy?

So can religion. Infact, especially religion.

But does religion generally relieve more of these types of burdens than it adds? I will allow that it is possible, but my mind is not resolved on this issue.
 

> > But I do understand you point. And I know that most atheists are fine
> > people who are kind and generous.
> > But that is not a result of their lack of belief. That's my point.
>
> If I were to agree that the character of an individual is not resolved from
> being either theist or atheist, would it be fair to question what makes the
> choice of atheism an empty one and theism a full one?
>

I'm not questioning the choice. I'm questioning the results.

Anyway, This is how I feel. I may be wrong. But I see the good of
religion everyday. Measurable good. Changing people's lives good.
Giving people hope. These are real benefits. Doing and believing in
nothing can't replace that.

Perhaps this is so. It could also be argued that atheism brings a different type of peace, as well as an ability to honestly realize whether one's actions are truly pure or were merely constructs of fear and the hope for reward. It feels very clean and uncomplicated in certain respects, freeing the mind to focus elsewhere.
 

Like, I said, this is my view. I doubt any discussion with you can
change that view. It's based on seeing results in people's lives. Not
based on some abstract discussion. You should know this, If you wish
to proceed. If you do,  I'll do my best to respond.

My discussions often are not about changing my opponent's view, but about changing my own. If your arguments appear to logically countermand my own I am willing to consider that it is possible that I may be wrong. Conversely, if you were to be convinced by my arguments I would feel no joy in the endeavor; there is a peace in theism akin to the comfort of childhood that I would feel most remiss in stripping away. It is not the foolishness of childhood with which I mean to equate it, but the concept of fixed principles and specific goals that otherwise bleed away through interaction with the real world. Theism provides an individual with fixed boundaries--for thought and action; atheism throws wide the gates of possibilities and may invite a certain restlessness to the uninitiated. A certain peace is possible with atheism, but each must discover it on their own as there are no road maps such as are offered via religion.

I do not look down upon the religious so long as they are not equally intolerant of my position.

The current topic in which we are engaged may not be resolvable far beyond the next few posts. Afterward, if you are interested, I would like to ask you a question on a new thread. The thread topic will be "Why did God create dinosaurs?"

Regards,

Jelrak TB

[dillan]

On Feb 8, 8:58 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think it's a bit alarmist to compare religion to slavery. But I see
your point.
And it's valid one. I think it's unfair to characterize religious good
deeds as non altruistic.
No good deed is purely altruistic. We all do it for the pure pleasure
of seeing someone feeling happy. So everyone do expect some form of
pleasure from it. I also know for a fact that most people I know, help
people, not because they expect to go to heaven. They do so because
they have the opportunity to help people. And that's what religion
gives, the opportunity.

>
> > > > It does nothing.
>
> > > Could it not free one from many conflicting emotions such as guilt,
> > > unworthiness, futility, angst, and hypocrisy?
> > So can religion. Infact, especially religion.
>
> But does religion generally relieve more of these types of burdens than it
> adds? I will allow that it is possible, but my mind is not resolved on this
> issue.

Not at all. I can see that with religious fundamentalist, but a vast
majority of people are not fundies.
We don't spend our days thinking about what would Jesus do.
We just go about our days as you do. We only think about God when
we're are either in the church, or in prayer or something. (or
discussing about him of course)

I think religion allows us to clearly compartmentalize emotions, and
deal with guilts we might feel for doing ill towards others. That's
why religious people are less stressed and less prone to depression.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > But I do understand you point. And I know that most atheists are fine
> > > > people who are kind and generous.
> > > > But that is not a result of their lack of belief. That's my point.
>
> > > If I were to agree that the character of an individual is not resolved
> > from
> > > being either theist or atheist, would it be fair to question what makes
> > the
> > > choice of atheism an empty one and theism a full one?
>
> > I'm not questioning the choice. I'm questioning the results.
>
> > Anyway, This is how I feel. I may be wrong. But I see the good of
> > religion everyday. Measurable good. Changing people's lives good.
> > Giving people hope. These are real benefits. Doing and believing in
> > nothing can't replace that.
>
> Perhaps this is so. It could also be argued that atheism brings a different
> type of peace, as well as an ability to honestly realize whether one's
> actions are truly pure or were merely constructs of fear and the hope for
> reward. It feels very clean and uncomplicated in certain respects, freeing
> the mind to focus elsewhere.

If you were religious and you lived in fear of death, then yes, you
should be an atheist. And I think most atheist are like that. They
have a totally skewed perception of religion, mainly because of their
bad experiences (I'm guessing of course)

>
>
> > Like, I said, this is my view. I doubt any discussion with you can
> > change that view. It's based on seeing results in people's lives. Not
> > based on some abstract discussion. You should know this, If you wish
> > to proceed. If you do,  I'll do my best to respond.
>
> My discussions often are not about changing my opponent's view, but about
> changing my own. If your arguments appear to logically countermand my own I
> am willing to consider that it is possible that I may be wrong. Conversely,
> if you were to be convinced by my arguments I would feel no joy in the
> endeavor; there is a peace in theism akin to the comfort of childhood that I
> would feel most remiss in stripping away. It is not the foolishness of
> childhood with which I mean to equate it, but the concept of fixed
> principles and specific goals that otherwise bleed away through interaction
> with the real world. Theism provides an individual with fixed
> boundaries--for thought and action; atheism throws wide the gates of
> possibilities and may invite a certain restlessness to the uninitiated. A
> certain peace is possible with atheism, but each must discover it on their
> own as there are no road maps such as are offered via religion.


> I do not look down upon the religious so long as they are not equally
> intolerant of my position.

I agree.

> The current topic in which we are engaged may not be resolvable far beyond
> the next few posts. Afterward, if you are interested, I would like to ask
> you a question on a new thread. The thread topic will be "Why did God create
> dinosaurs?"

Go for it. I will respond.

[zencycle]

On Feb 8, 1:49 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Think about it, what is the point of atheism? It stands for nothing,
> it promotes nothing. It does nothing.
> I help with nothing, it has no benefit to human condition, or to their
> health.

Then you might want to have a chat with ma who....he thinks atheism is
a religion.

[dillan]

Since I don't, I don't see any point. But I DO think that some
atheists sometimes teat it as such.

[Kilmir]

On Feb 8, 7:49 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:13 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, that's an apt analogy indeed.
> > > Atheism has no usefulness whatsoever.
> > > IMHO, It's just make empty shells out of people.
>
> > Why would you think so?
>
> Think about it, what is the point of atheism? It stands for nothing,
> it promotes nothing. It does nothing.
> I help with nothing, it has no benefit to human condition, or to their
> health.
>
> Atheism is actually the art of doing nothing, and complaining about
> people who do. (I think)

Atheism is purely the lack of a belief in some deity. Although it
doesn't do anything actively, it eliminates the "easy" one-answer-fits-
all solution and consequently encourages research and self-reflection
to look for answers.
And yes, that very much has a benefit to the human condition and
indirectly to their health.

[dillan]

Actually, for most of history, most scientists were theists. So I
doubt your assessment is accurate.
Theism or atheism has no baring on the success of these giants.
However, religious organizations, have contributed to some.

[Answer_42]

On Feb 6, 3:41 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> A counter funny: Theism is a religion like on is a TV channel.

Nope, not funny in the slightest.
________________________________________
They put the Negroes in the schools, and now they've driven God out.
-- George Andrews

[Answer_42]

On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
> whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right. But it doesn't, and
> atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> whether it's the active denial of God's existence,

Not one single atheist actively denies god's existence.

Think about what that actually means and what it implies.

> or the adoration of
> nature, science, etc.  

Again, you make the mistake of thinkng that an atheist has no beliefs
whatsoever. Why is it that so many theists cannot wrap their
delusional mind around such a simlpe concept as atheism?

Ooops,I think I have answered my own question...

> So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>
> A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
> beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
> aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
> other forms of organization.
>
> Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.
>
> I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> considered a religion.

Of course you don't, biased as you are by your own delusional beliefs,
you can hardly imagine a life without them--so you assume that
everyone has something similar.

[JTB]

Does not even Jesus compare it to slavery?
 

But I see your point.And it's valid one. I think it's unfair to characterize religious good

deeds as non altruistic.
No good deed is purely altruistic. We all do it for the pure pleasure

of seeing someone feeling happy.  So everyone does expect some form of

pleasure from it. I also know for a fact that most people I know, help
people, not because they expect to go to heaven. They do so because
they have the opportunity to help people. And that's what religion
gives, the opportunity.

Fair enough.
 

>
> > > > It does nothing.
>
> > > Could it not free one from many conflicting emotions such as guilt,
> > > unworthiness, futility, angst, and hypocrisy?
> > So can religion. Infact, especially religion.
>
> But does religion generally relieve more of these types of burdens than it
> adds? I will allow that it is possible, but my mind is not resolved on this
> issue.

Not at all. I can see that with religious fundamentalist, but a vast
majority of people are not fundies.
We don't spend our days thinking about what would Jesus do.
We just go about our days as you do. We only think about God when
we're are either in the church, or in prayer or something. (or
discussing about him of course)

I think religion allows us to clearly compartmentalize emotions, and
deal with guilts we might feel for doing ill towards others. That's
why religious people are less stressed and less prone to depression.

Ok.
 

>
>
>
> > > > But I do understand you point. And I know that most atheists are fine
> > > > people who are kind and generous.
> > > > But that is not a result of their lack of belief. That's my point.
>
> > > If I were to agree that the character of an individual is not resolved
> > from
> > > being either theist or atheist, would it be fair to question what makes
> > the
> > > choice of atheism an empty one and theism a full one?
>
> > I'm not questioning the choice. I'm questioning the results.
>
> > Anyway, This is how I feel. I may be wrong. But I see the good of
> > religion everyday. Measurable good. Changing people's lives good.
> > Giving people hope. These are real benefits. Doing and believing in
> > nothing can't replace that.
>
> Perhaps this is so. It could also be argued that atheism brings a different
> type of peace, as well as an ability to honestly realize whether one's
> actions are truly pure or were merely constructs of fear and the hope for
> reward. It feels very clean and uncomplicated in certain respects, freeing
> the mind to focus elsewhere.

If you were religious and you lived in fear of death, then yes, you
should be an atheist. And I think most atheist are like that. They
have a totally skewed perception of religion, mainly because of their
bad experiences (I'm guessing of course)

Might it not also have something to do with having a freedom to doubt? If a religious person has questions or doubts about their faith, are not their doubts often bent back towards them and blamed upon them as existing due to a lack of faith? Would such a doubter not potentially carry with him or her a tremendous burden of guilt? Would not the lifting of that burden, along with a validation of said doubts not bring the doubter much peace of mind? With this peace, could not the doubter then find the freedom to investigate all facets of the problems and determine their apparent causes in a less judgmental format?

It has been launched; I look forward to your participation when you are ready.
 

[dillan]

On Feb 9, 4:22 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not really aware of such a comparison. Any references you're aware
of?

Actually that could not be further from the truth. If you do a survey
of church attendees, you'll see that ~90% of them don't believe in all
the rules of Christianity (unless you're going to a fundie church)
We all have doubts based on our conscience. Infact, St. Augustin
specifically said that if one's conscience contradicts with the
religious doctrine, follow your conscience.

> Would such a doubter not potentially carry with him or her
> a tremendous burden of guilt?

No, not at all. Theists are not lemmings that follow one leader. Like
you, we have a diverse spectrum of beliefs. Just like your views are
based on the principles "reason" (gasp!), our views are based on the
teachings of Christ.

You should not think that religious fundamentalism is the norm. It's
the exception, by far!

> Would not the lifting of that burden, along
> with a validation of said doubts not bring the doubter much peace of mind?

It would.

> With this peace, could not the doubter then find the freedom to investigate
> all facets of the problems and determine their apparent causes in a less
> judgmental format?

Yes. and religious allows this as well.

> ...
>
> read more »

[JTB]

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your souls." Matthew 11:29

Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25

Is a 90% disagreement rating evidence for, or against, a divinely inspired church?
 

> Would such a doubter not potentially carry with him or her
> a tremendous burden of guilt?

No, not at all. Theists are not lemmings that follow one leader. Like
you, we have a diverse spectrum of beliefs. Just like your views are
based on the principles "reason" (gasp!), our views are based on the
teachings of Christ.

You should not think that religious fundamentalism is the norm. It's
the exception, by far!

Would you not agree that in the 1950s there would have been a much different reaction to professing doubts than at present? What do you think has changed?
 

> Would not the lifting of that burden, along
> with a validation of said doubts not bring the doubter much peace of mind?

It would.

> With this peace, could not the doubter then find the freedom to investigate
> all facets of the problems and determine their apparent causes in a less
> judgmental format?

Yes. and religious allows this as well.

But did it always allow this? If not, what makes today different?
 

[dillan]

On Feb 9, 5:50 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Surely you're not suggesting that this means that religion is equal to
slavery?

> Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
> So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful
> nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>

Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.

The church is not divinely inspired, The scripture is. Like I said,
people make up their own minds about these things.
That's why you see gay marriage opponents vs proponents. Abortion vs
pro choice, etc.
Thinking Christianity is a monolithic entity is simple wrong.

>
>
> > > Would such a doubter not potentially carry with him or her
> > > a tremendous burden of guilt?
> > No, not at all. Theists are not lemmings that follow one leader. Like
> > you, we have a diverse spectrum of beliefs. Just like your views are
> > based on the principles "reason" (gasp!), our views are based on the
> > teachings of Christ.
>
> > You should not think that religious fundamentalism is the norm. It's
> > the exception, by far!
>
> Would you not agree that in the 1950s there would have been a much different
> reaction to professing doubts than at present? What do you think has
> changed?
>

I would agree with that. What has changed is that, like everything
else, the church has learned from it;s mistakes.
Yes, the church makes mistakes. That has always been acknowledge.

>
>
>
>
> > > Would not the lifting of that burden, along
> > > with a validation of said doubts not bring the

> > mind?
>
> > It would.
>
> > > With this peace, could not the doubter then find the freedom to
> > investigate
> > > all facets of the problems and determine their apparent causes in a less
> > > judgmental format?
>
> > Yes. and religious allows this as well.
>
> But did it always allow this? If not, what makes today different?

Because, like everything else, we learn from our mistakes. The change
should be evidence of that.

> > > > > > Like, I said, this is my view. I doubt any discussion with you can
> > > > > > change that view. It's based on seeing results in people's lives.
> > Not
> > > > > > based on some abstract discussion. You should know this, If you
> > wish
> > > > > > to proceed. If you do,  I'll do my best to respond.
>
> > > > > My discussions often are not about changing my opponent's view, but
> > about
> > > > > changing my own. If your arguments appear to logically countermand my
> > own
> > > >

<snip>

[Drafterman]

On Feb 8, 8:51 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:13 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 12:58 pm, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 7, 8:41 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> > > > > If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
> > > > > whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right.
>
> > > > It does.
>
> > >  ?   Not if you're using the commonly accepted definition - which also
> > > includes strong/positive atheists - who actively deny God's
> > > existence.
>
> > No, I did not take it such an absurd degree.
>
> This "absurd degree" is considered standard in most academic or even
> popular books dealing with atheism. Your definition is unique.

That's not what I meant, but I digress.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > But it doesn't, and
> > > > > atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> > > > > whether it's the active denial of God's existence, or the adoration of
> > > > > nature, science, etc.   So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> > > > > often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>
> > > > Which has nothing to do with the atheism. Any beliefs outside of "I
> > > > don't believe god exists" is tangential to atheism. That such beliefs
> > > > may be common among some subset of atheists is irrelevant.
>
> > > They are not merely common. They are common and caused by the same
> > > shared core belief among strong atheists (most atheists, in my
> > > experience)  - that God does not exist. They are beliefs which build
> > > upon the same foundation - a 'belief system'.
>
> > I am suspicious of your ability to speak so authoritatively on the
> > inner workings of the belief system of millions of other people and
> > that you have no first hand knowledge of.
>
> I do have first hand knowledge of atheists (??)

But not of their belief systems.

Buth atheism is not analagous to Christianity, it's analgous to

theism.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Likewise, not all atheists are subject to the rituals and behavior of
> > some organized group of atheists.
>
> > > > > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > > > > considered a religion.
>
> > > > Because, in all cases, it isn't.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[JTB]

Was not the yoke recognized as a symbol of slavery during this time? Would not the imagery of a man taking the place of an animal in such an arrangement suggest such a prospect?

 

> Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!
> So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful
> nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>

Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.

Are you quite certain? Are not many of Christianity's conventions and precepts directly attributable to St. Paul's interpretations of Jesus' purported purpose in coming to Earth?
 

Is this to suggest that Jesus' purpose one Earth was to bring not only division among the peoples of the Earth, but also among his followers? If this was not his purpose, did he fail in his purpose?

 

>
>
> > > Would such a doubter not potentially carry with him or her
> > > a tremendous burden of guilt?
> > No, not at all. Theists are not lemmings that follow one leader. Like
> > you, we have a diverse spectrum of beliefs. Just like your views are
> > based on the principles "reason" (gasp!), our views are based on the
> > teachings of Christ.
>
> > You should not think that religious fundamentalism is the norm. It's
> > the exception, by far!
>
> Would you not agree that in the 1950s there would have been a much different
> reaction to professing doubts than at present? What do you think has
> changed?
>

I would agree with that. What has changed is that, like everything
else, the church has learned from it;s mistakes.
Yes, the church makes mistakes. That has always been acknowledge.

If the church established by God's son is so capable of error, how does one consider in which of its proclamations to place one's trust? With God's judgment so final, how could any persist in any form of faith that would suggest they were right and all others wrong?

 

[dillan]

On Feb 10, 3:25 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here is the full passage;

Matthew 11:28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I
am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

"Yoke" is clearly an analogy. I think in this case It's meant as a
burden.

>
> > > Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our
> > Lord!
> > > So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful
> > > nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>
> > Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.
>
> Are you quite certain? Are not many of Christianity's conventions and
> precepts directly attributable to St. Paul's interpretations of Jesus'
> purported purpose in coming to Earth?
>

True, but not on his admissions. Certainly not this particular
admission JTB.

> ...
>
> read more »

[JTB]

If I agree it is an analogy, could I not then respond: "I think in this case it's meant as a sign of slavery?"

Would it truly make sense for Jesus to state: "Come all who are weary and *burdened* and I will give you rest. Take my *burden* upon you and learn..." How will taking an extra burden from Jesus provide rest? Would it not make sounder sense if Jesus meant: "Allow me to enslave you and you will find your tasks to be easy and light [instead of heavy and wearying]?"
 

>
> > > Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our
> > Lord!
> > > So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful
> > > nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>
> > Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.
>
> Are you quite certain? Are not many of Christianity's conventions and
> precepts directly attributable to St. Paul's interpretations of Jesus'
> purported purpose in coming to Earth?
>

True, but not on his admissions. Certainly not  this particular
admission JTB.

Would it not be inferred if such a one as St. Paul suggested that *he* was an example to follow? Would not all of his considerations be viewed to hold great merit?

<snip>

[dillan]

<snip>

>
> > > Was not the yoke recognized as a symbol of slavery during this time?
> > Would
> > > not the imagery of a man taking the place of an animal in such an
> > > arrangement suggest such a prospect?
>
> > Here is the full passage;
>
> > Matthew 11:28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
> > will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I
> > am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
> > 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
>
> > "Yoke" is clearly an analogy. I think in this case It's meant as a
> > burden.
>
> If I agree it is an analogy, could I not then respond: "I think in this case
> it's meant as a sign of slavery?"

You can, but you'd be wrong. Because it was not a statement of
oppression, but rather, a statement of emancipation from burden.

> Would it truly make sense for Jesus to state: "Come all who are weary and
> *burdened* and I will give you rest. Take my *burden* upon you and learn..."
> How will taking an extra burden from Jesus provide rest? Would it not make
> sounder sense if Jesus meant: "Allow me to enslave you and you will find
> your tasks to be easy and light [instead of heavy and wearying]?"
>

He's not talking about taking extra burdens. He's talking about
replacing the heavy burden that the weary is currently carrying, and
replace it with a lighter burden. Being a Christian is hard, but it
does lighten your heavy heart.

It certainly make far more sense than;
- Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
- will give you rest. "become my slave" and learn from me, for I
- am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
souls.
- For "being my slave" is easy and my burden is light.”

That's not an effective way to start off a religion.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our
> > > > Lord!
> > > > > So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the
> > sinful
> > > > > nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>
> > > > Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.
>
> > > Are you quite certain? Are not many of Christianity's conventions and
> > > precepts directly attributable to St. Paul's interpretations of Jesus'
> > > purported purpose in coming to Earth?
>
> > True, but not on his admissions. Certainly not  this particular
> > admission JTB.
>
> Would it not be inferred if such a one as St. Paul suggested that *he* was
> an example to follow? Would not all of his considerations be viewed to hold
> great merit?

Gandhi is an example to follow, but I wouldn't test my power of
celibacy by sleeping with naked women.


> <snip>

[JTB]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:47 PM, dillan <dfer...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> > > Was not the yoke recognized as a symbol of slavery during this time?
> > Would
> > > not the imagery of a man taking the place of an animal in such an
> > > arrangement suggest such a prospect?
>
> > Here is the full passage;
>
> > Matthew 11:28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
> > will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I
> > am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
> > 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
>
> > "Yoke" is clearly an analogy. I think in this case It's meant as a
> > burden.
>
> If I agree it is an analogy, could I not then respond: "I think in this case
> it's meant as a sign of slavery?"

You can, but you'd be wrong. Because it was not a statement of
oppression, but rather, a statement of emancipation from burden.

As you wish.
 

> Would it truly make sense for Jesus to state: "Come all who are weary and
> *burdened* and I will give you rest. Take my *burden* upon you and learn..."
> How will taking an extra burden from Jesus provide rest? Would it not make
> sounder sense if Jesus meant: "Allow me to enslave you and you will find
> your tasks to be easy and light [instead of heavy and wearying]?"
>

He's not talking about taking extra burdens. He's talking about
replacing the heavy burden that the weary is currently carrying, and
replace it with a lighter burden. Being a Christian is hard, but it
does lighten your heavy heart.

Is not slavery to a good master considered to be a lighter burden than slavery to an uncaring master?
 

It certainly make far more sense than;
- Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
- will give you rest. "become my slave" and learn from me, for I

- am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
souls.

- For "being my slave" is easy and my burden is light.”

That's not an effective way to start off a religion.

Is commanding a crowd of thousands to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood perhaps a better way?
 

>
>
> > > > > Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our
> > > > Lord!
> > > > > So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the
> > sinful
> > > > > nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>
> > > > Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.
>
> > > Are you quite certain? Are not many of Christianity's conventions and
> > > precepts directly attributable to St. Paul's interpretations of Jesus'
> > > purported purpose in coming to Earth?
>
> > True, but not on his admissions. Certainly not  this particular
> > admission JTB.
>
> Would it not be inferred if such a one as St. Paul suggested that *he* was
> an example to follow? Would not all of his considerations be viewed to hold
> great merit?

Gandhi is an example to follow, but I wouldn't test my power of
celibacy by sleeping with naked women.

Would you reconsider for a cash prize?

Regardless, was Gandhi attempting to establish a religion and using himself as an example of a prime disciple?

[dillan]

On Feb 10, 5:05 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

slavery is slavery. Are you saying this analogy was used to motivate
people to join the movement?

>
> > It certainly make far more sense than;
> > - Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
> > - will give you rest. "become my slave" and learn from me, for I
> > - am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
> > souls.
> > - For "being my slave" is easy and my burden is light.”
>
> > That's not an effective way to start off a religion.
>
> Is commanding a crowd of thousands to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood
> perhaps a better way?

Are you saying that symbolic celebration is a manifestation of
cannibalism?

>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ
> > our
> > > > > > Lord!
> > > > > > > So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the
> > > > sinful
> > > > > > > nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>
> > > > > > Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.
>
> > > > > Are you quite certain? Are not many of Christianity's conventions and
> > > > > precepts directly attributable to St. Paul's interpretations of
> > Jesus'
> > > > > purported purpose in coming to Earth?
>
> > > > True, but not on his admissions. Certainly not  this particular
> > > > admission JTB.
>
> > > Would it not be inferred if such a one as St. Paul suggested that *he*
> > was
> > > an example to follow? Would not all of his considerations be viewed to
> > hold
> > > great merit?
>
> > Gandhi is an example to follow, but I wouldn't test my power of
> > celibacy by sleeping with naked women.
>
> Would you reconsider for a cash prize?

By whom? Gandhi? or the women I'm suppose to sleep with?

> Regardless, was Gandhi attempting to establish a religion and using himself
> as an example of a prime disciple?

No, but the analogy still holds, does it not?

[JTB]

Might it have been used for any other purpose? Considering whether Jesus was inviting people into a master/slave relationship with God (which is the most likely scenario between beings of such disparate levels of power) through direct wording or whether he was merely suggesting that he had power enough to lighten their burdens (as only a master could), is it possible to imagine his purpose was anything other than an attempt to motivate people to follow him [as their master] of their own free will?
 

>
> > It certainly make far more sense than;
> > - Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
> > - will give you rest. "become my slave" and learn from me, for I
> > - am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
> > souls.
> > - For "being my slave" is easy and my burden is light.”
>
> > That's not an effective way to start off a religion.
>
> Is commanding a crowd of thousands to eat one's flesh and drink one's blood
> perhaps a better way?

 

Are you saying that symbolic celebration is a manifestation of
cannibalism?

If symbolic, why did Jesus not correct the crowds who left in disgust? If true cannibalism, why did not his remaining disciples take him up on his suggestion? Was it a lack of appetite?

>  >
>
> > > > > > > Or St. Paul's admission: "Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ
> > our
> > > > > > Lord!
> > > > > > > So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the
> > > > sinful
> > > > > > > nature a slave to the law of sin." Romans 7:25
>
> > > > > > Christianity is not based on Paul's admission. JTB.
>
> > > > > Are you quite certain? Are not many of Christianity's conventions and
> > > > > precepts directly attributable to St. Paul's interpretations of
> > Jesus'
> > > > > purported purpose in coming to Earth?
>
> > > > True, but not on his admissions. Certainly not  this particular
> > > > admission JTB.
>
> > > Would it not be inferred if such a one as St. Paul suggested that *he*
> > was
> > > an example to follow? Would not all of his considerations be viewed to
> > hold
> > > great merit?
>
> > Gandhi is an example to follow, but I wouldn't test my power of
> > celibacy by sleeping with naked women.
>
> Would you reconsider for a cash prize?

 

By whom? Gandhi? or the women I'm suppose to sleep with?

So if Gandhi were to offer you the cash prize (in the form of a trust in his name), would you be more or less likely to participate than if the women themselves, in a fit of adoration, scraped together a suitable cash allotment in order to tempt you to be in their vicinity?
 

> Regardless, was Gandhi attempting to establish a religion and using himself
> as an example of a prime disciple?

 

No, but the analogy still holds, does it not?

Would it hold as fast were it properly compared to an individual who claimed, "Do as I do and you will enter eternal bliss; do it not and hellfire awaits...?"

[dillan]

On Feb 11, 12:08 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok, first of all, you have to stop responding in questions. If you
still want to, atleast answer my questions directly.
Secondly, the point of this is to establish whether atheism has any
purpose. Not whether one verse in Matthew 11 represents all of
Christianity.
If you say it does, then so be it. If you say it doesn't, well,, then
that's that.
Now answer this question. Do you think that Matthew 11;
a) Actually says that Jesus was preaching literal slavery?
b) That it represents all of Christianity in the real world?
Yes or no answers.
If yes to either or both, then you are not talking about a realistic
representation of Christianity.
If no, then we have nothing to talk about on this matter.

But, let's get back to the usefulness of Atheism. Can you list the
tings that you think makes Atheism useful to humanity?

Let's examine those.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > It certainly make far more sense than;
> > > > - Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
> > > > - will give you rest. "become my slave" and learn from me, for I
> > > > - am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
> > > > souls.
> > > > - For "being my slave" is easy and my burden is light.”
>
> > > > That's not an effective way to start off a religion.
>
> > > Is commanding a crowd of thousands to eat one's flesh and drink one's
> > blood
> > > perhaps a better way?
>
> > Are you saying that symbolic celebration is a manifestation of
> > cannibalism?
>
> If symbolic, why did Jesus not correct the crowds who left in disgust?

err...Because they didn't get the symbolism? I'm not even sure what
you're talking about here. I was referring to the symbolic nature of
the Eucharist.

[JTB]

Why? [could not resist ;-p ]
 

If you still want to, atleast answer my questions directly.

I apologize, I was more interested in finding out what you thought. I already know what I think. Since my purpose is not to [de]convert you, but to plumb the depths of your knowledge is not the most reasonable approach to ask you questions? If you are actually interested in what I think I will try to formulate that as well...but I am still likely to ask you questions in order to refine points that are unclear rather than pointlessly argue with you when I may not 1) properly understand your meaning; or 2) feel that I have enough knowledge on the subject.

 

Secondly, the point of this is to establish whether atheism has any
purpose.

Is not the feeling of being free from slavery relevant to the discussion? Atheism provides one such a feeling. If your contention is that religion is not a form of slavery, but the atheist deems it is, should not the actual feelings of the atheist be considered priority given the topic? To be fair and to provide my own perspective, as requested: I am inclined to believe that a religion that concedes that an almighty power expects *anything* from an adherent under threat of violence and/or promise of reward is by definition placing the adherent in a master/slave relationship. Who is able to dole out such punishments or offer such rewards other than a supreme master? Who better to feel gratitude for being spared such punishments and given the *gifts* of such rewards other than a slave?

Atheism seems to offer a freedom from entertaining such a relationship. This brings about a sense of peace and responsibility for one's own actions. I will readily admit it also, like all true freedoms, may bring about a sense of insecurity to the uninitiated since all responsibility rests with the one. While many people generally place a higher value on freedom than security (as witnessed by the overthrow of totalitarian and/or communist regimes) others do not. A willing enslavement, such as the one offered by Jesus, might appear quite attractive to the latter.
 

Not whether one verse in Matthew 11 represents all of
Christianity.
If you say it does, then so be it. If you say it doesn't, well,, then
that's that.
Now answer this question. Do you think that Matthew 11;
a) Actually says that Jesus was preaching literal slavery?

Spiritual slavery, yes.
 

b) That it represents all of Christianity in the real world?

By represents, do you mean: 1) Christianity openly teaches this? 2) Christianity can be interpreted to teach this [albeit indirectly]? My leanings would be with the latter suggestion, yes.
 

Yes or no answers.
If yes to either or both, then you are not talking about a realistic
representation of Christianity.

Might you consider my explanation above before being so certain?
 

If no, then we have nothing to talk about on this matter.

But, let's get back to the usefulness of Atheism. Can you list the
tings that you think makes Atheism useful to humanity?

Let's examine those.

1) Responsibility for one's actions
2) Freedom to accept reality on its own terms
3) Freedom from fear of progressing socially and/or morally beyond any biblical constraints
4) Freedom to think independently of scriptures and beyond mere cultural or religious norms
5) Access to interesting debating topics
6) A reason to ask Dillan questions

>
> > > > It certainly make far more sense than;
> > > > - Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
> > > > - will give you rest. "become my slave" and learn from me, for I
> > > > - am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
> > > > souls.
> > > > - For "being my slave" is easy and my burden is light.”
>
> > > > That's not an effective way to start off a religion.
>
> > > Is commanding a crowd of thousands to eat one's flesh and drink one's
> > blood
> > > perhaps a better way?
>
> > Are you saying that symbolic celebration is a manifestation of
> > cannibalism?
>
> If symbolic, why did Jesus not correct the crowds who left in disgust?

 

err...Because they didn't get the symbolism? I'm not even sure what
you're talking about here. I was referring to the symbolic nature of
the Eucharist.

As was I. Am I incorrect in interpreting the mass exodus from Jesus after his instruction that: "Truly I tell you that unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life in you..." to be a sign of their disgust at the very thought (ie. the crowd took his words literally)? Then does Jesus turn to those still nearby and exclaim, "When they get the deep symbolism they'll be back?" Or does he instead ask, "Will you also leave?"
 

> If true cannibalism, why did not his remaining disciples take him up on his
> suggestion? Was it a lack of appetite?

<snip>

[dillan]

On Feb 11, 2:33 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

I can buy your premise if you were not asking leading questions.

> > Secondly, the point of this is to establish whether atheism has any
> > purpose.
>
> Is not the feeling of being free from slavery relevant to the discussion?

Slavery itself is not relevant to this discussion.

> Atheism provides one such a feeling. If your contention is that religion is
> not a form of slavery, but the atheist deems it is, should not the actual
> feelings of the atheist be considered priority given the topic?

Only if there is some merit to the charge. It makes no sense to
consider made up accusations is there?

> To be fair
> and to provide my own perspective, as requested: I am inclined to believe
> that a religion that concedes that an almighty power expects *anything* from
> an adherent under threat of violence and/or promise of reward is by
> definition placing the adherent in a master/slave relationship. Who is able
> to dole out such punishments or offer such rewards other than a supreme
> master? Who better to feel gratitude for being spared such punishments and
> given the *gifts* of such rewards other than a slave?

I agree, and that's true. But my point is that Christians don't feel
that way. We do have a choice, and like I said, most people are
Christians because of the benefits it provides. As I said, you're
arguing against fundamentalism. Not mainstream.

> Atheism seems to offer a freedom from entertaining such a relationship. This
> brings about a sense of peace and responsibility for one's own actions. I
> will readily admit it also, like all true freedoms, may bring about a sense
> of insecurity to the uninitiated since all responsibility rests with the
> one. While many people generally place a higher value on freedom than
> security (as witnessed by the overthrow of totalitarian and/or communist
> regimes) others do not. A willing enslavement, such as the one offered by
> Jesus, might appear quite attractive to the latter.

ok.

> > Not whether one verse in Matthew 11 represents all of
> > Christianity.
> > If you say it does, then so be it. If you say it doesn't, well,, then
> > that's that.
> > Now answer this question. Do you think that Matthew 11;
> > a) Actually says that Jesus was preaching literal slavery?
>
> Spiritual slavery, yes.

I guess you can make the same argument with father-son, wife-husband,
etc relationships. That kind of spiritual and emotional dependency is
a normal for humans.

> > b) That it represents all of Christianity in the real world?
>
> By represents, do you mean: 1) Christianity openly teaches this? 2)
> Christianity can be interpreted to teach this [albeit indirectly]? My
> leanings would be with the latter suggestion, yes.

The teachings you speak of are not meant to enslave you, they are mean
to free you from the slavery of materialism.
No one puts a gun to your head.

> > Yes or no answers.
> > If yes to either or both, then you are not talking about a realistic
> > representation of Christianity.
>
> Might you consider my explanation above before being so certain?
>
> > If no, then we have nothing to talk about on this matter.
>
> > But, let's get back to the usefulness of Atheism. Can you list the
> > tings that you think makes Atheism useful to humanity?
>
> > Let's examine those.
>
> 1) Responsibility for one's actions
> 2) Freedom to accept reality on its own terms
> 3) Freedom from fear of progressing socially and/or morally beyond any
> biblical constraints
> 4) Freedom to think independently of scriptures and beyond mere cultural or
> religious norms
> 5) Access to interesting debating topics
> 6) A reason to ask Dillan questions
>

As you can see, atheism is all about "ME" What "I" get out of it.
Christianity is all about "US" How can "WE" make things better.
That sir, is the fundamental difference between Christianity and
Atheism.

[JTB]

I apologize if they seem leading, but these are the questions that are most interesting to me. I will understand if you feel unfairly put upon by them and do not wish to respond further.
 

> > Secondly, the point of this is to establish whether atheism has any
> > purpose.
>
> Is not the feeling of being free from slavery relevant to the discussion?

Slavery itself is not relevant to this discussion.

As you wish.
 

> Atheism provides one such a feeling. If your contention is that religion is
> not a form of slavery, but the atheist deems it is, should not the actual
> feelings of the atheist be considered priority given the topic?

Only if there is some merit to the charge. It makes no sense to
consider made up accusations is there?

> To be fair
> and to provide my own perspective, as requested: I am inclined to believe
> that a religion that concedes that an almighty power expects *anything* from
> an adherent under threat of violence and/or promise of reward is by
> definition placing the adherent in a master/slave relationship. Who is able
> to dole out such punishments or offer such rewards other than a supreme
> master? Who better to feel gratitude for being spared such punishments and
> given the *gifts* of such rewards other than a slave?

I agree, and that's true. But my point is that Christians don't feel
that way. We do have a choice, and like I said, most people are
Christians because of the benefits it provides. As I said, you're
arguing against fundamentalism. Not mainstream.

So, in order that I understand this properly, in mainline Christianity, are you free to disobey God's commands without an eternal consequence imposed by him after your death?
 

> Atheism seems to offer a freedom from entertaining such a relationship. This
> brings about a sense of peace and responsibility for one's own actions. I
> will readily admit it also, like all true freedoms, may bring about a sense
> of insecurity to the uninitiated since all responsibility rests with the
> one. While many people generally place a higher value on freedom than
> security (as witnessed by the overthrow of totalitarian and/or communist
> regimes) others do not. A willing enslavement, such as the one offered by
> Jesus, might appear quite attractive to the latter.

ok.

> > Not whether one verse in Matthew 11 represents all of
> > Christianity.
> > If you say it does, then so be it. If you say it doesn't, well,, then
> > that's that.
> > Now answer this question. Do you think that Matthew 11;
> > a) Actually says that Jesus was preaching literal slavery?
>
> Spiritual slavery, yes.

I guess you can make the same argument with father-son, wife-husband,
etc relationships. That kind of spiritual and emotional dependency is
a normal for humans.

Excepting that these relationships, when healthy, are not master/slave, but more akin to partnerships. A father may care for a son when the child is young with the [hopeful] expectation that the son, when grown will consider his needs if they arise.
 

> > b) That it represents all of Christianity in the real world?
>
> By represents, do you mean: 1) Christianity openly teaches this? 2)
> Christianity can be interpreted to teach this [albeit indirectly]? My
> leanings would be with the latter suggestion, yes.

The teachings you speak of are not meant to enslave you, they are mean
to free you from the slavery of materialism.
No one puts a gun to your head.

Is not the prospect of Hell gun enough?
 

> > Yes or no answers.
> > If yes to either or both, then you are not talking about a realistic
> > representation of Christianity.
>
> Might you consider my explanation above before being so certain?
>
> > If no, then we have nothing to talk about on this matter.
>
> > But, let's get back to the usefulness of Atheism. Can you list the
> > tings that you think makes Atheism useful to humanity?
>
> > Let's examine those.
>
> 1) Responsibility for one's actions
> 2) Freedom to accept reality on its own terms
> 3) Freedom from fear of progressing socially and/or morally beyond any
> biblical constraints
> 4) Freedom to think independently of scriptures and beyond mere cultural or
> religious norms
> 5) Access to interesting debating topics
> 6) A reason to ask Dillan questions
>

As you can see, atheism is all about "ME" What "I" get out of it.
Christianity is all about "US" How can "WE" make things better.
That sir, is the fundamental difference between Christianity and
Atheism.

Are not freedom and responsibility deeply personal? I will agree that it does seem quite self-centered to desire to ask Dillan questions.

Truly mine is not a position to suggest that Christianity is not good for society; mine is to question whether it is true.
 

[Bob T.]

On Feb 11, 1:03 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As you can see, atheism is all about "ME" What "I" get out of it.
> Christianity is all about "US" How can "WE" make things better.
> That sir, is the fundamental difference between Christianity and
> Atheism.

No, sir, the fundamental difference between Christianity and atheism
is that we atheists don't believe your Christian stories. We don't
think your God actually exists, we don't believe that Jesus walked on
water, and we don't believe that there is an afterlife.

You probably don't believe in Aphrodite, right? Is that because you
are against love, or just that you don't think that the Roman gods
actually exist?

- Bob T

>
- Bob T

[dillan]

On Feb 11, 7:51 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you saying that Christians all follow every single law God put
forth?
The point being that, you can still be a Christian while still
following your conscience.
The notion that you have to be an atheist to follow your conscience is
nonsensical.

If you do a surveys, how many Christians do you think would say they
have followed all laws? Make a guess?

I think it is created a false dichotomy.

And, the passage you indicated shows that consideration. The passage
makes a request. Not a demand.

>
> > > > b) That it represents all of Christianity in the real world?
>
> > > By represents, do you mean: 1) Christianity openly teaches this? 2)
> > > Christianity can be interpreted to teach this [albeit indirectly]? My
> > > leanings would be with the latter suggestion, yes.
>
> > The teachings you speak of are not meant to enslave you, they are mean
> > to free you from the slavery of materialism.
> > No one puts a gun to your head.
>
> Is not the prospect of Hell gun enough?
>

Evidently, no. Atheist have created this theoretical argument which
has no baring on reality.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Yes or no answers.
> > > > If yes to either or both, then you are not talking about a realistic
> > > > representation of Christianity.
>
> > > Might you consider my explanation above before being so certain?
>
> > > > If no, then we have nothing to talk about on this matter.
>
> > > > But, let's get back to the usefulness of Atheism. Can you list the
> > > > tings that you think makes Atheism useful to humanity?
>
> > > > Let's examine those.
>
> > > 1) Responsibility for one's actions
> > > 2) Freedom to accept reality on its own terms
> > > 3) Freedom from fear of progressing socially and/or morally beyond any
> > > biblical constraints
> > > 4) Freedom to think independently of scriptures and beyond mere cultural
> > or
> > > religious norms
> > > 5) Access to interesting debating topics
> > > 6) A reason to ask Dillan questions
>
> > As you can see, atheism is all about "ME" What "I" get out of it.
> > Christianity is all about "US" How can "WE" make things better.
> > That sir, is the fundamental difference between Christianity and
> > Atheism.
>
> Are not freedom and responsibility deeply personal?

And personal responsibility doesn't end there. You have a
responsibility for your community as well. Those values are not
promoted by atheism, because atheism is basically doing, believe. and
contributing nothing.

As it turns out, one can only become an atheist when one only consider
his personal freedoms and desires.
It contributes nothing to humanity.

> I will agree that it
> does seem quite self-centered to desire to ask Dillan questions.

hehe

> Truly mine is not a position to suggest that Christianity is not good for
> society; mine is to question whether it is true.
>

Mine is to question whether atheism has any purpose other than self-
indulgence.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > It certainly make far more sense than;
> > > > > > > > - Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I
> > > > > > > > - will give you rest. "become my slave" and learn from me, for
> > I
> > > > > > > > - am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for
> > your
> > > > > > > > souls.
> > > > > > > > - For "being my slave" is easy and my burden is light.”
>
> > > > > > > > That's not an effective way to start off a religion.
>
> > > > > > > Is commanding a crowd of thousands to eat one's flesh and drink
> > one's
> > > > > > blood
> > > > > > > perhaps a better way?
>
> > > > > > Are you saying that symbolic celebration is a manifestation of
> > > > > > cannibalism?
>
> > > > > If symbolic, why did Jesus not correct the crowds who left in
> > disgust?
>
> > > > err...Because they didn't get
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[dillan]

Sorry Bob. Please read our discussion in full. We are talking about
the social effects of atheism. Not it's meaning.

[Bob T.]

On Feb 8, 10:49 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 8, 12:13 pm, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well, that's an apt analogy indeed.
> > > Atheism has no usefulness whatsoever.
> > > IMHO, It's just make empty shells out of people.
>
> > Why would you think so?
>
> Think about it, what is the point of atheism? It stands for nothing,
> it promotes nothing. It does nothing.
> I help with nothing, it has no benefit to human condition, or to their health.

The same thing could be said about not believing in Thor.

>
> Atheism is actually the art of doing nothing, and complaining about people who do. (I think)

No, atheism is the lack of belief in mythology.

- Bob T

>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Feb 6, 3:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy- Hide quoted text -

[Bob T.]

On Feb 11, 6:11 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Bob. Please read our discussion in full. We are talking about
> the social effects of atheism. Not it's meaning.

I have read your discussion, and my post is directly on point. People
don't choose to be atheists because they want to accomplish
something. People are atheists because they think that God is just as
fictional as Aphrodite.

If you want to brag about how believing in mythology helps Christians
be better people, go right ahead. I would rather try to grasp reality
as it actually is.

- Bob T

>
> On Feb 11, 8:06 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 1:03 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As you can see, atheism is all about "ME" What "I" get out of it.
> > > Christianity is all about "US" How can "WE" make things better.
> > > That sir, is the fundamental difference between Christianity and
> > > Atheism.
>
> > No, sir, the fundamental difference between Christianity and atheism
> > is that we atheists don't believe your Christian stories.  We don't
> > think your God actually exists, we don't believe that Jesus walked on
> > water, and we don't believe that there is an afterlife.
>
> > You probably don't believe in Aphrodite, right?  Is that because you
> > are against love, or just that you don't think that the Roman gods
> > actually exist?
>
> > - Bob T
>

> > - Bob T- Hide quoted text -

[dillan]

On Feb 11, 10:58 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 6:11 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Bob. Please read our discussion in full. We are talking about
> > the social effects of atheism. Not it's meaning.
>
> I have read your discussion, and my post is directly on point.  People
> don't choose to be atheists because they want to accomplish
> something.  People are atheists because they think that God is just as
> fictional as Aphrodite.

And that transformation comes with a price. The price is that you
become a self-centric person where there is nothing motivating you to
contribute to the greater good of humanity.

> If you want to brag about how believing in mythology helps Christians
> be better people, go right ahead.  I would rather try to grasp reality
> as it actually is.

It is reality that Christianity promotes greater good for humanity.
And it is also reality that atheism is basically like 0. no cause, no
effect.

[4praise]

Naw - it's more like that channel that shows a test pattern 24/7

[JTB]

Are there a set of laws that can safely be discarded? Am I wrong in thinking that the reason Christians ask God for forgiveness is because they cannot always follow all the rules?

 

The point being that, you can still be a Christian while still
following your conscience.
The notion that you have to be an atheist to follow your conscience is
nonsensical.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply such. What I meant was that the atheist, in following his/her conscience [being honest with him/herself], accepts that there is no God. Many of the Christians in my surroundings have very well defined consciences and I would trust them with all that I have.

 

If you do a surveys, how many Christians do you think would say they
have followed all laws? Make a guess?

I think it is  created a false dichotomy.

 

 

Ok

A willing enslavement is no less an enslavement, but assuming you do not feel enslaved, how much of a *partnership* do you expect to have with God in an afterlife? Will you make the plans for how things will transpire on odd days and he will command the even? Or do you expect, instead, to be entirely at his mercy: following his commands [however willingly] and hoping he makes good on his promise of keeping you in Heaven for all eternity, but ultimately having no control over the arrangement?

 

How would you describe such an arrangement? If it is like that of a father and child, will the child ever be expected to grow up and gain independance?

 

>
> > > > b) That it represents all of Christianity in the real world?
>
> > > By represents, do you mean: 1) Christianity openly teaches this? 2)
> > > Christianity can be interpreted to teach this [albeit indirectly]? My
> > > leanings would be with the latter suggestion, yes.
>
> > The teachings you speak of are not meant to enslave you, they are mean
> > to free you from the slavery of materialism.
> > No one puts a gun to your head.
>
> Is not the prospect of Hell gun enough?
>

Evidently, no. Atheist have created this theoretical argument which

has no bearing on reality.

 

 

What is the corrected reality? Are not non-conformists to God's rules threatened with an eternity in Hell [making any concept of a free choice in the matter, once one believes, largely non-sensical]?

Is an individual who is willing to view reality as he/she believes it to be, truly divorced from his/her community, friends, family, etc. simply because they do not believe in an afterlife? Is it your opinion that belief in an eternal reward/punishment is the only means of motivating people to benefit their neighbours? [I will not claim that it is not helpful--indeed I *have* argued that it is in the past--but merely is it the only way?] 

 

Would not a zealous jihadist, full of belief in Allah, not potentially cause more problems for a Christian community [say, in Egypt], than an atheist who cares little for the differences between the two religions? With whom might the Christians be better able to live at peace?

 

As it turns out, one can only become an atheist when one only consider
his personal freedoms and desires.
It contributes nothing to humanity.

> I will agree that it
> does seem quite self-centered to desire to ask Dillan questions.

hehe

> Truly mine is not a position to suggest that Christianity is not good for
> society; mine is to question whether it is true.
>

Mine is to question whether atheism has any purpose other than self-
indulgence.

 

 

And I believe that is worthy. It is much more interesting to consider the views of one looking in from without; it helps to keep both parties honest.

 

<snip>

[Ma-who?]

> That's because you're an idiot.

Spoken in the words of an obviously well-educated, reasonable, and
mature man. Who still hasn't grown out of playground name-calling.
Maybe next time, you can actually try to construct an argument!

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 9, 2:53 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Feb 6, 2:31 am, Mulhid Murtad <mulhidmur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>

> > If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs

> > whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right. But it doesn't, and

> > atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> > whether it's the active denial of God's existence,
>

> Not one single atheist actively denies god's existence.

This is ridiculously inaccurate. Google atheism, and read the
description on wiki or infidels.org. Active denial is common, and an
entire branch of atheism (in a two part division) is named for it.


> Think about what that actually means and what it implies.

>
> > or the adoration of
> > nature, science, etc.  
>

> Again, you make the mistake of thinkng that an atheist has no beliefs
> whatsoever. Why is it that so many theists cannot wrap their
> delusional mind around such a simlpe concept as atheism?
>
> Ooops,I think I have answered my own question...

No, you're completely misunderstanding my position, in almost
unbelievable ways. I just stated above that atheists active denial of
God qualifies as a belief. Clearly I don't think that an 'atheist has
no beliefs'. So the proper question here is ' What the hell happened
to your reading comprehension skills?"

>
> > So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> > often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>

> > A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
> > beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
> > aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
> > other forms of organization.
>
> > Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> > have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> > fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.
>

> > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > considered a religion.
>

> Of course you don't, biased as you are by your own delusional beliefs,
> you can hardly imagine a life without them--so you assume that
> everyone has something similar.

I assume everyone has religion because I am biased by religion?
Besides that being a non-sequitur - not even qualifying as an actual
argument, you are making a number of wholly inaccurate statements .
None of my beliefs are delusion, and if you feel so, then make an
argument. Hint, we've done this before - and the entire academic
community thinks you're wrong. Your continued use of this term ,
contrary to obvious facts which I have presented for you - actually
does meet the clinical definition of delusion. Ironic right? Get back
to me after you clear that up.

> ________________________________________
> They put the Negroes in the schools, and now they've driven God out.
> -- George Andrews

[Alexia Beane]

lol. and atheism IS considered a religion. at least to me and my
fellow atheists. but unfortunitely, the majority of the population
refuses to acknoledge us......

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
>

[Answer_42]

On Feb 20, 12:04 pm, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > i found that funny but quite accurate an analogy
>
> > > If atheism strictly referred to people who only have no beliefs
> > > whatsoever on the subject - you'd be right. But it doesn't, and
> > > atheists almost always have beliefs attached to their atheism -
> > > whether it's the active denial of God's existence,
>
> > Not one single atheist actively denies god's existence.
>
> This is ridiculously inaccurate. Google atheism, and read the
> description on wiki or infidels.org. Active denial is common, and an
> entire branch of atheism (in a two part division) is named for it.

It might be useful if you defined your term instead of letting us
guess what you mean.

From the Merriam-Webster:
------
To deny:

1: to declare untrue <deny an allegation>
(...)
5: to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of
-----

Because you used the qualifier "active," I had meaning 5 in mind,
which is what many theists have in mind when thy use the term when
criticizing atheists. Hence my comment. Now, if you meant meaning 1,
then sure, but then you were not saying much, were you? And please,
do explain what it means to actively declare something untrue as
opposed to merely declaring something untrue.

> > Think about what that actually means and what it implies.
>
> > > or the adoration of
> > > nature, science, etc.  
>
> > Again, you make the mistake of thinkng that an atheist has no beliefs
> > whatsoever. Why is it that so many theists cannot wrap their
> > delusional mind around such a simlpe concept as atheism?
>
> > Ooops,I think I have answered my own question...
>
> No, you're completely misunderstanding my position, in almost
> unbelievable ways. I just stated above that atheists active denial of
> God qualifies as a belief.

So lacking a hobby means you have a hobby?

> Clearly I don't think that an 'atheist has
> no beliefs'.   So the proper question here is ' What the hell happened
> to your reading comprehension skills?"

Sorry, I get easily flustered when the most preposterous statements
are made in all seriousness.

> > > So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> > > often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>
> > > A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
> > > beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
> > > aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
> > > other forms of organization.
>
> > > Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> > > have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> > > fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.
>
> > > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > > considered a religion.
>
> > Of course you don't, biased as you are by your own delusional beliefs,
> > you can hardly imagine a life without them--so you assume that
> > everyone has something similar.
>
> I assume everyone has religion because I am biased by religion?

Of course you are.

> Besides that being a non-sequitur -

Of course it is not a non sequitur. the conclusion does follow from
the premise.

> not even qualifying as an actual
> argument,

Well despite your understandable reticence, it is an argument that has
merits.

> you are making a number of wholly inaccurate statements .
> None of my beliefs are delusion,

So, in your world, to believe, based on an ancient text alone, that a
man can come back from the dead three days after being dead is
rational and wholly un-delusional? To believe in the existence of an
imaginary character based on faith has nothing to do with delusions?

> and if you feel so, then make an
> argument. Hint, we've done this before - and the entire academic
> community thinks you're wrong. Your continued use of this term ,
> contrary to obvious facts which I have presented for you - actually
> does meet the clinical definition of delusion.

Where did I used the expression "clinically delusional "?

Again, in your world, the only real delusions are those that are
officially labelled as clinical?
________________________________________
Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of
the Holy Spirit?
-- John Calvin

[Answer_42]

On Feb 20, 11:58 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > > considered a religion.
>
> > That's because you're an idiot.
>
> Spoken in the words of an obviously well-educated, reasonable, and
> mature man. Who still hasn't grown out of playground name-calling.

Well, you made a playground argument, and you are surprised to receive
a playground reply?

> Maybe next time, you can actually try to construct an argument!

Oh, the irony! That being said, you do get an A for effort in trying
to sell a most preposterous concept, despite the fact that hundreds
before you have tried to make the same silly argument, and failed.

[Ma-who?]

I'm referring to meaning 5. I'm not going to waste anymore time
explaining the obvious. For more information on distinctions and
divisions between atheists, I encourage you to check wiki or read
George H Smith's classic, Atheism.

>
> > > Think about what that actually means and what it implies.
>
> > > > or the adoration of
> > > > nature, science, etc.  
>
> > > Again, you make the mistake of thinkng that an atheist has no beliefs
> > > whatsoever. Why is it that so many theists cannot wrap their
> > > delusional mind around such a simlpe concept as atheism?
>
> > > Ooops,I think I have answered my own question...
>
> > No, you're completely misunderstanding my position, in almost
> > unbelievable ways. I just stated above that atheists active denial of
> > God qualifies as a belief.
>
> So lacking a hobby means you have a hobby?

A hobby is not a belief. Your analogy does not hold water.

>
> > Clearly I don't think that an 'atheist has
> > no beliefs'.   So the proper question here is ' What the hell happened
> > to your reading comprehension skills?"
>
> Sorry, I get easily flustered when the most preposterous statements
> are made in all seriousness.

Perhaps you should reconsider your certainty. When did certainty
become the primary attribute of self-titled skeptics? Aren't skeptics
open to new beliefs, and challenges to your own? Or is that "skeptic"
in name only?

>
>
>
> > > > So it's true that, like religion, atheists
> > > > often share a loose set of shared values, beliefs, etc.
>
> > > > A very brief definition of religion is a shared set of values and
> > > > beliefs that add meaning to a person's life, combined with the public
> > > > aspect of the religion - personal rituals , church attendance, and
> > > > other forms of organization.
>
> > > > Although not as organized as most religions, atheists do nonetheless
> > > > have basic public social structures - e.g. American Atheists is a
> > > > fairly large organization, or the FreeThinkers/Humanist societies.
>
> > > > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > > > considered a religion.
>
> > > Of course you don't, biased as you are by your own delusional beliefs,
> > > you can hardly imagine a life without them--so you assume that
> > > everyone has something similar.
>
> > I assume everyone has religion because I am biased by religion?
>
> Of course you are.

This is ridiculously irrational. I encourage you to try and present
arguments next time. Adding 'of course' to all your absurd statements
doesn't make them any less absurd.

>
> > Besides that being a non-sequitur -
>
> Of course it is not a non sequitur. the conclusion does follow from
> the premise.

I am biased by religion, therefore I think everyone has religion.
That's a non-sequitur - your conclusion is not even remotely evidenced
by the premise that I am biased by religion (which you have yet to
prove anyways). Figure it out.

>
> > not even qualifying as an actual
> > argument,
>
> Well despite your understandable reticence, it is an argument that has
> merits.
>
> > you are making a number of wholly inaccurate statements .
> > None of my beliefs are delusion,
>
> So, in your world, to believe, based on an ancient text alone, that a
> man can come back from the dead three days after being dead is
> rational and wholly un-delusional? To believe in the existence of an
> imaginary character based on faith has nothing to do with delusions?

I encourage you to check the definition of delusion, which requires
that the belief is false. My beliefs are not based on an ancient text
alone, and if you feel you can prove them false- then let's hear it...

Or you could have a shred of honesty and integrity and admit your use
of the term is wholly inaccurate and baseless.

>
> > and if you feel so, then make an
> > argument. Hint, we've done this before - and the entire academic
> > community thinks you're wrong. Your continued use of this term ,
> > contrary to obvious facts which I have presented for you - actually
> > does meet the clinical definition of delusion.
>
> Where did I used the expression "clinically delusional "?
>
> Again, in your world, the only real delusions are those that are
> officially labelled as clinical

In my world, words have meanings that are bestowed on them by popular
usage, and reflected by dictionaries. So look it up yourself. Welcome
back to reality.

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 22, 7:32 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:58 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > > > considered a religion.
>
> > > That's because you're an idiot.
>
> > Spoken in the words of an obviously well-educated, reasonable, and
> > mature man. Who still hasn't grown out of playground name-calling.
>
> Well, you made a playground argument, and you are surprised to receive
> a playground reply?

If it was a playground argument, then you'd think you'd be able to
offer a single coherent response to it, as opposed to a series of non-
sequiturs whose absurdity you try to hide by starting every line with
'Of course."

If my argument is of playground quality, then your intelligence must
be infantile.

>
> > Maybe next time, you can actually try to construct an argument!
>
> Oh, the irony! That being said, you do get an A for effort in trying
> to sell a most preposterous concept, despite the fact that hundreds
> before you have tried to make the same silly argument, and failed.

Condescending and patronizing me is not an argument. Maybe next time
Answer, keep practicing.

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 20, 11:08 am, Alexia Beane <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lol. and atheism IS considered a religion. at least to me and my
> fellow atheists. but unfortunitely, the majority of the population
> refuses to acknoledge us......

Your colleagues here disagree. But I'm interested, why do you think
atheism is a religion, exactly?

[thea]

because it is a lack of belief in anything.
Nothing exists.
This is the reason some say it is a religion -- because it is what it is?

[Lexie]

Well a non-belief in god constitutes as a belief in itself, and a
belief system is what religions are made of, so therefore, it would
have to be a religion. Simple reasoning:)

[Drafterman]

On Feb 20, 12:08 pm, Alexia Beane <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lol. and atheism IS considered a religion. at least to me and my
> fellow atheists.

Uhm, no. I'm an atheist and I don't consider it a religion. Then
again, it doesn't matter how you or I consider it. You could consider
it to be a ham sandwich. What matters is the definition of the words
used, and atheism doesn't fit.

> but unfortunitely, the majority of the population
> refuses to acknoledge us......
>

> On 2/20/11, Ma-who? <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 9:48 am, zencycle <zency...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 7, 9:26 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> >> > considered a religion.
>
> >> That's because you're an idiot.
>
> > Spoken in the words of an obviously well-educated, reasonable, and
> > mature man. Who still hasn't grown out of playground name-calling.
> > Maybe next time, you can actually try to construct an argument!
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[Answer_42]

On Feb 22, 9:57 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > I don't see any reason why , in most cases, atheism should not be
> > > > > considered a religion.
>
> > > > That's because you're an idiot.
>
> > > Spoken in the words of an obviously well-educated, reasonable, and
> > > mature man. Who still hasn't grown out of playground name-calling.
>
> > Well, you made a playground argument, and you are surprised to receive
> > a playground reply?
>
> If it was a playground argument, then you'd think you'd be able to
> offer a single coherent response to it, as opposed to a series of non-
> sequiturs whose absurdity you try to hide by starting every line with
> 'Of course."

Where have I done that?

> If my argument is of playground quality, then your intelligence must
> be infantile.
>
>
>
> > > Maybe next time, you can actually try to construct an argument!
>
> > Oh, the irony! That being said, you do get an A for effort in trying
> > to sell a most preposterous concept, despite the fact that hundreds
> > before you have tried to make the same silly argument, and failed.
>
> Condescending and patronizing me is not an argument. Maybe next time
> Answer, keep practicing.

I am not about to waste time tryiing to enlitghten you on why athsiem
is not a religion. It has been done to death before.
The only way you can even come close to making this "argument" is by
redefining the word religion beyond recognition.

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 22, 11:17 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> because it is a lack of belief in anything.
> Nothing exists.

This is a theoretical construction of atheism which rarely exists in
reality. I find the majority of atheists are not merely undecided, or
lacking a firm position on the issue - but tend to lean towards
*active denial* - that is, the belief that God *does not* exist, which
is a claim, a belief, and in that regard no different from believing
God *does* exist.

> This is the reason some say it is a religion -- because it is what it is?
>

[Answer_42]

Then you are being silly, and are you still going to argue that you
are not being biased by your religious beliefs?

Meaning 5 implies that that which is being denied is actually real.
So the rest of the argument fails because it rests on a silly premise.

As I said earlier, not one single atheist "denies" (as per meaning 5
above) the existence of gods--it does not make sense. How can a person
denies that which does not exist in their world view?

> I'm not going to waste anymore time
> explaining the obvious. For more information on distinctions and
> divisions between atheists, I encourage you to check wiki or read
> George H Smith's classic, Atheism.

You are thoroughly confused.

I believe you are referring to the often mentioned distinction
between"weak" and "strong" atheism. No matter how you define those two
categories, none of these two types of atheists "deny" that gods are
real as per meaning 5 above.

I encourage you to revisit this comment of mine:
-----

> > > > Think about what that actually means and what it implies.

-----

> > > > > or the adoration of
> > > > > nature, science, etc.  
>
> > > > Again, you make the mistake of thinkng that an atheist has no beliefs
> > > > whatsoever. Why is it that so many theists cannot wrap their
> > > > delusional mind around such a simlpe concept as atheism?
>
> > > > Ooops,I think I have answered my own question...
>
> > > No, you're completely misunderstanding my position, in almost
> > > unbelievable ways. I just stated above that atheists active denial of
> > > God qualifies as a belief.
>
> > So lacking a hobby means you have a hobby?
>
> A hobby is not a belief. Your analogy does not hold water.

It does.
You are claiming that LACKING a belief is a belief in itself.

You clearly do not understand what "lacking a belief" means, hence the
analogy. I am trying to help.

Here is another one:
Is bald a type of hairdo?

<snip>

> > > > Of course you don't, biased as you are by your own delusional beliefs,
> > > > you can hardly imagine a life without them--so you assume that
> > > > everyone has something similar.
>
> > > I assume everyone has religion because I am biased by religion?
>
> > Of course you are.
>
> This is ridiculously irrational.  I encourage you to try and present
> arguments next time. Adding 'of course' to all your absurd statements
> doesn't make them any less absurd.

Oh, so I use "of course " twice and suddenly you conclude that I use
it everywhere?
Also, using "of course" does not automatically mean that my statement
is absurd. That is your own personal conclusion, it has nothing to do
with the fact that I use "of course".

>
> > > Besides that being a non-sequitur -
>
> > Of course it is not a non sequitur. the conclusion does follow from
> > the premise.
>
> I am biased by religion, therefore I think everyone has religion.

Not what I claimed.
I said that because you are biased by your own religiousness, you
think that atheism is a religion.

> That's a non-sequitur - your conclusion is not even remotely evidenced
> by the premise that I am biased by religion (which you have yet to
> prove anyways). Figure it out.

Strictly speaking, a non-sequitur has nothing to do with lack of
evidence. I could present an argument, warn that I am still looking
for evidence or supporting facts, but meanwhile, the conclusion can
still be logically valid based on the premise. A hypothetical argument
is not automatically a non-sequitur, or else your god belief is anon-
sequitur in and of itself.
In any case, I did present the evidence:
You claim that atheism is a religion. Why? I have no idea since by
definition, it cannot be. The only thing I can see is that the only
people who ever try to make this silly argument are those who belong
to a religion of some sort. So, how can you claim that I have no
evidence or that it is a non-sequitur?

>
>
> > > not even qualifying as an actual
> > > argument,
>
> > Well despite your understandable reticence, it is an argument that has
> > merits.
>
> > > you are making a number of wholly inaccurate statements .
> > > None of my beliefs are delusion,
>
> > So, in your world, to believe, based on an ancient text alone, that a
> > man can come back from the dead three days after being dead is
> > rational and wholly un-delusional? To believe in the existence of an
> > imaginary character based on faith has nothing to do with delusions?
>
> I encourage you to check the definition of delusion,

Here, from the Merriam-Webster:
delusion:
"
1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
"

to delude
"
1 : to mislead the mind or judgment of

"

> which requires
> that the belief is false. My beliefs are not based on an ancient text
> alone,

Really?
So you have other experiences of people being brought back from the
dead 3 days after being dead?
You have personally witnessed someone getting pregnant without ever
having intercourse with another human being?

Please, do share.

> and if you feel you can prove them false- then let's hear it...

Seriously? You want me to prove that the avove two events are not
possible?

> Or you could have a shred of honesty and integrity and admit your use
> of the term is wholly inaccurate and baseless.

Sorry, but based on the above definition, it is quite accurate.
I know that reality bites, so I won't be surprised to see you
resist...
Maybe you should use this honesty your refer to and consider how you
came to have those beliefs in the first place.

>
> > > and if you feel so, then make an
> > > argument. Hint, we've done this before - and the entire academic
> > > community thinks you're wrong. Your continued use of this term ,
> > > contrary to obvious facts which I have presented for you - actually
> > > does meet the clinical definition of delusion.
>
> > Where did I used the expression "clinically delusional "?
>
> > Again, in your world, the only real delusions are those that are
> > officially labelled as clinical
>
> In my world,  words have meanings that are bestowed on them by popular
> usage,

Exactly!
And I provided a definition that does not refer to clinical delusions,
which are quite a different beast--and not what I was referring to in
relation to you. Now, had I been exchanging with Brock of Joe, I might
consider referring to clinical delusions in their cases...

> and reflected by dictionaries. So look it up yourself. Welcome
> back to reality.

Indeed!

[Drafterman]

On Feb 24, 9:43 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 11:17 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > because it is a lack of belief in anything.
> > Nothing exists.
>
> This is a theoretical construction of atheism which rarely exists in
> reality. I find the majority of atheists are not merely undecided, or
> lacking a firm position on the issue - but tend to lean towards
> *active denial* - that is, the belief that God *does not* exist, which
> is a claim, a belief, and in that regard no different from believing
> God *does* exist.

That atheists have beliefs in addition to, and outside, of their
atheism is irrelevant. I'm an atheist. I have many beliefs about many
things. I even believe in things for which I lack solid proof. There
are things in which I even take on faith (the normal, reasonable,
everyday definition of faith, rather than the absurd, stupid, willful
blindness of religious Faith).

But those things have nothing to do with my atheism, at least in
regard to affecting why I'm an atheist and what atheism means.

Atheism means a lack of belief in gods. Everything else is tangential.
What other beliefs I have, even if shared by all other atheists, is
irrelevant.

If, by some strange coincidence, all atheists on the planet suddenly
believed that the Sun had a molten chocolate center, that wouldn't add
to the definition of atheism:
"Believes that the sun has a molten chocolate center."

Now, confusion arises because "Lacks a belief in god" and "Actively
denies the existence of a god" are both covered by the same term:
atheism.
This collision of definitions does not negate the existence of either
one. It's just as invalid to say that, because many, most, or even all
atheists actively deny god then atheism is not a "lack of belief in
god" as it is to say that, because many, most, or even all atheists
passively lack a belief in god then atheism is not a "active denial of
god."

From a logical standpoint, in order to actively refute something, you
naturally must lack a belief in its existence or truth. From this
stance, active denial includes and requires a passive lack. The
passive lack, then, accounts for those that actively deny, even if it
does not fully describe their atheistic stance. Thus, if we are to
talk about all atheists, as a group, and don't wish to misrepresent
anyone (you don't, do you?), then we are forced to stop at the passive
lack.

Many people, theists and atheists alike, have taken pains to address
this issue. Subdivisions of atheism have been proposed, including
positive/negative; strong/weak; and implicit/explicit atheism. Given
the attention this has been given from both sides of the issue, it
seems unreasonable to dismiss negative/weak/implicit atheism as merely
an imaginary construct to be dismissed.

If you wish to talk about atheists and atheism in general, them I'm
afraid you are force to limit yourself to the terms and definitions
that do, in fact, address all atheists. In this case: a passive lack.
If you wish to talk only of atheists who actively deny a god* then
it'd probably be best to qualify your statements to that affect, or to
explicitly state that you are only talking about that subset (however
large it may be) of atheists.

* - The issues is further complicated by the fact that, given the
multitude of existing god-concepts (and the infinitude of potential
god-concepts) that any given atheist can actively deny some, and only
passively lack a belief in the others. For example, I actively deny
the existence of the Christian God, but am more passive regarding,
say, a pantheistic divine entity. So not only should you qualify or
explain that you are talking about strong atheists when you are
talking about strong atheists, but you should also include which god
these atheists are actively denying as well.

[thea]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Ma-who? <the...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 22, 11:17 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> because it is a lack of belief in anything.
> Nothing exists.

This is a theoretical construction of atheism which rarely exists in
reality. I find the majority of atheists are not merely undecided, or
lacking a firm position on the issue - but tend to lean towards
*active denial* - that is, the belief that God *does not* exist, which
is a claim, a belief, and in that regard no different from believing
God *does* exist.

Agreed.
And, I see that atheists have to work real hard to make themselves
believe - as it is not a once done deal - it is the over and over
telling themselves that they don't believe.
Whereas, a Christian, when they have the *down--payment* of
their future inheritance, which is the Holy Spirit living in them,
does not have to talk themselves into anything, as the Holy Spirit
is the witness of the *know-so*.


 

[Alexia Beane]

Bald IS a type of hairdo.. my science teacher shaved his head last year, and has kept it that way ever since

[Drafterman]

On Feb 25, 12:23 pm, Alexia Beane <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bald IS a type of hairdo.. my science teacher shaved his head last year, and
> has kept it that way ever since

...Which doesn't make it a hairdo. A requirement for having a hairdo
is ... wait for it ... hair!

>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:11 PM, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Duke of Omnium]

On Feb 25, 12:35 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 12:23 pm, Alexia Beane <abeane43...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Bald IS a type of hairdo.. my science teacher shaved his head last year, and
> > has kept it that way ever since
>
> ...Which doesn't make it a hairdo. A requirement for having a hairdo
> is ... wait for it ... hair!
>

Would it be a hairdon't?

[Ma-who?]

This is an idiotic dodge - a splitting of hairs so you can avoid
admitting the obvious. To deny the existence, truth, or validity of
something is (quite obviously) not accepting the thing in question is
actually real. It is complete, absurd, nonsense for you to argue that
denying the existence of something requires you to accept it's
existence first.

When you find yourself in err, the respectable thing to do is simply
admit the err and move on - an action which will get you exponentially
more respect and recognition of decency than foolishly trying to dig
yourself out of the hole you already created. You're only going
further down..

>
> As I said earlier, not one single atheist "denies" (as per meaning 5
> above) the existence of gods--it does not make sense. How can a person
> denies that which does not exist in their world view?
>
> > I'm not going to waste anymore time
> > explaining the obvious. For more information on distinctions and
> > divisions between atheists, I encourage you to check wiki or read
> > George H Smith's classic, Atheism.
>
> You are thoroughly confused.
>
> I believe you are referring to the often mentioned distinction
> between"weak" and "strong" atheism. No matter how you define those two
> categories, none of these two types of atheists "deny" that gods are
> real as per meaning 5 above.

Glad to see you're finally getting the drift. That distinction is also
commonly referred to as positive/negative atheism - which I find more
accurate and more appropriate. Perhaps now you can retract your
previous denials of this fact:

"Not one single atheist actively denies god's existence. " -you, a few
posts ago

Care to take that back now? Or will "strong/positive" atheists
disappear in the time between your last post and the next?

>
> I encourage you to revisit this comment of mine:
> -----> > > > Think about what that actually means and what it implies.
>
> -----
>
>
>
> > > > > > or the adoration of
> > > > > > nature, science, etc.  
>
> > > > > Again, you make the mistake of thinkng that an atheist has no beliefs
> > > > > whatsoever. Why is it that so many theists cannot wrap their
> > > > > delusional mind around such a simlpe concept as atheism?
>
> > > > > Ooops,I think I have answered my own question...
>
> > > > No, you're completely misunderstanding my position, in almost
> > > > unbelievable ways. I just stated above that atheists active denial of
> > > > God qualifies as a belief.
>
> > > So lacking a hobby means you have a hobby?
>
> > A hobby is not a belief. Your analogy does not hold water.
>
> It does.
> You are claiming that LACKING a belief is a belief in itself.

No, I am not. Active denial is the belief "God does not exist". That
is not a lack of a belief - you seem to be confused by the fact that
negative statements can also express propositional content, and
therefore qualify as a belief. If that's your difficulty, then just
use a different phrasing, "God is an illusion"

>
> You clearly do not understand what "lacking a belief" means, hence the
> analogy. I am trying to help.

I appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid the nature of my argument
still eludes you. Active denial is a belief, it has propositional
content, and it is common among atheists. Meaning a core, common
feature among atheists is a given belief, and the resulting belief
system which builds upon and depends upon that core fact (the denial
of God's existence).

>
> Here is another one:
> Is bald a type of hairdo?

Here's a better one - is nihilism a philosophy?

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > Of course you don't, biased as you are by your own delusional beliefs,
> > > > > you can hardly imagine a life without them--so you assume that
> > > > > everyone has something similar.
>
> > > > I assume everyone has religion because I am biased by religion?
>
> > > Of course you are.
>
> > This is ridiculously irrational.  I encourage you to try and present
> > arguments next time. Adding 'of course' to all your absurd statements
> > doesn't make them any less absurd.
>
> Oh, so I use "of course " twice and suddenly you conclude that I use
> it everywhere?
> Also, using "of course" does not automatically mean that my statement
> is absurd. That is your own personal conclusion, it has nothing  to do
> with the fact that I use "of course".
>
>
>
> > > > Besides that being a non-sequitur -
>
> > > Of course it is not a non sequitur. the conclusion does follow from
> > > the premise.
>
> > I am biased by religion, therefore I think everyone has religion.
>
> Not what I claimed.
> I said that because you are biased by your own religiousness, you
> think that atheism is a religion.

That's exactly what I wrote above - with only the slightest of
rewording - with no change in meaning. Wtf.

"Because you are biased by religion - you think atheism is religion" =
"You are baised by religion, therefore you think atheism is a
religion".

And in either case, it's still not an argument, there is no logic
there, there is no evidence there. You're giving me your own hollow
speculation and opinion on my motivations. Which is, of course, it's
own fallacy - an attack on the man (ad hominem). You need to point out
the flaws in my argument , my possible intent or bias here is
irrelevant.

>
> > That's a non-sequitur - your conclusion is not even remotely evidenced
> > by the premise that I am biased by religion (which you have yet to
> > prove anyways). Figure it out.
>
> Strictly speaking, a non-sequitur has nothing to do with lack of
> evidence. I could present an argument, warn that I am still looking
> for evidence or supporting facts, but meanwhile, the conclusion can
> still be logically valid based on the premise. A hypothetical argument
> is not automatically a non-sequitur, or  else your god belief is anon-
> sequitur in and of itself.

It's a non-sequitur because the conclusion does not follow from the
premises. the fact that the premise is entirely unevidenced is a whole
other problem you have.

> In any case, I did present the evidence:
> You claim that atheism is a religion. Why? I have no idea since by
> definition, it cannot be. The only thing I can see is that the only
> people who ever try to make this silly argument are those who belong
> to a religion of some sort. So, how can you claim that I have no
> evidence or that it is a non-sequitur?

Because hollow , empty speculation - based on the fact that you don't
understand my argument - is not evidence.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > not even qualifying as an actual
> > > > argument,
>
> > > Well despite your understandable reticence, it is an argument that has
> > > merits.
>
> > > > you are making a number of wholly inaccurate statements .
> > > > None of my beliefs are delusion,
>
> > > So, in your world, to believe, based on an ancient text alone, that a
> > > man can come back from the dead three days after being dead is
> > > rational and wholly un-delusional? To believe in the existence of an
> > > imaginary character based on faith has nothing to do with delusions?
>
> > I encourage you to check the definition of delusion,
>
> Here, from the Merriam-Webster:
> delusion:
> "
> 1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
> "
>
> to delude
> "
> 1 : to mislead the mind or judgment of

This is a shitty definition, as I'm sure you know. We're not talking
about the verb - to delude - we're talking about the noun 'delusion'
- which has it's own definitions you've neglected to post here, for
obvious reasons.

But it's still a vain attempt - you're only pissing into the wind here
-because even the def you give, for delude, *requires* that the belief
is actually false. Which you cannot prove. So you're still wrong.

> "
>
> > which requires
> > that the belief is false. My beliefs are not based on an ancient text
> > alone,
>
> Really?
> So you have other experiences of people being brought back from the
> dead 3 days after being dead?
> You have personally witnessed someone getting pregnant without ever
> having intercourse with another human being?
>
> Please, do share.
>
> > and if you feel you can prove them false- then let's hear it...
>
> Seriously? You want me to prove that the avove two events are not
> possible?

Yes.

>
> > Or you could have a shred of honesty and integrity and admit your use
> > of the term is wholly inaccurate and baseless.
>
> Sorry, but based on the above definition, it is quite accurate.
> I know that reality bites, so I won't be surprised to see you
> resist...
> Maybe you should use this honesty your refer to and consider how you
> came to have those beliefs in the first place.
>
>
>
> > > > and if you feel so, then make an
> > > > argument. Hint, we've done this before - and the entire academic
> > > > community thinks you're wrong. Your continued use of this term ,
> > > > contrary to obvious facts which I have presented for you - actually
> > > > does meet the clinical definition of delusion.
>
> > > Where did I used the expression "clinically delusional "?
>
> > > Again, in your world, the only real delusions are those that are
> > > officially labelled as clinical
>
> > In my world,  words have meanings that are bestowed on them by popular
> > usage,
>
> Exactly!
> And I provided a definition that does not refer to clinical delusions,
> which are quite a different beast--and not what I was referring to in
> relation to you. Now, had I been exchanging with Brock of Joe, I might
> consider referring to clinical delusions in their cases...

Exactly what type of delusion are you trying to imply I have then? And
when are you going to go about showing my beliefs are false, giving
yourself any legs to stand on when you say I'm delusional?

[Ma-who?]

On Feb 24, 9:16 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:43 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 11:17 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > because it is a lack of belief in anything.
> > > Nothing exists.
>
> > This is a theoretical construction of atheism which rarely exists in
> > reality. I find the majority of atheists are not merely undecided, or
> > lacking a firm position on the issue - but tend to lean towards
> > *active denial* - that is, the belief that God *does not* exist, which
> > is a claim, a belief, and in that regard no different from believing
> > God *does* exist.
>
> That atheists have beliefs in addition to, and outside, of their
> atheism is irrelevant. I'm an atheist. I have many beliefs about many
> things. I even believe in things for which I lack solid proof. There
> are things in which I even take on faith (the normal, reasonable,
> everyday definition of faith, rather than the absurd, stupid, willful
> blindness of religious Faith).

A curious, comical, and meaningless distinction ;)
Faith is faith. You just don't like where theists put there's (and
they may say the same of you).

>
> But those things have nothing to do with my atheism, at least in
> regard to affecting why I'm an atheist and what atheism means.
>
> Atheism means a lack of belief in gods. Everything else is tangential.

It means more than that, and beliefs, lifestyles, values, etc- which
derive and depend upon an atheist position - surely must be considered
along with their causing fundamental belief, atheism.

I will not say that humanism, or secularism, etc - are part of the
definition of atheism, but we cannot pretend they are not part of the
same topic- and should at least be considered when we talking about
atheism generally - and it's alleged status as a religion.

> What other beliefs I have, even if shared by all other atheists, is
> irrelevant.
>
> If, by some strange coincidence, all atheists on the planet suddenly
> believed that the Sun had a molten chocolate center, that wouldn't add
> to the definition of atheism:
> "Believes that the sun has a molten chocolate center."

Agreed, because a chocolate sun is not dependent or derivative upon
your atheistic stance. However, if you came to believe that the point
of life is to enjoy yourself (since there is no afterlife, God,
eternal moral code or justice, etc) - that could be considered part of
your atheism/atheist philosophy.

>
> Now, confusion arises because "Lacks a belief in god" and "Actively
> denies the existence of a god" are both covered by the same term:
> atheism.
> This collision of definitions does not negate the existence of either
> one. It's just as invalid to say that, because many, most, or even all
> atheists actively deny god then atheism is not a "lack of belief in
> god" as it is to say that, because many, most, or even all atheists
> passively lack a belief in god then atheism is not a "active denial of
> god."

I see your point, and there is no need for us to have a collision
here. I am referring exclusively to atheists who actively deny God's
existence. Those who merely lack a belief either way are not part of
my argument here.

>
> From a logical standpoint, in order to actively refute something, you
> naturally must lack a belief in its existence or truth. From this
> stance, active denial includes and requires a passive lack. The
> passive lack, then, accounts for those that actively deny, even if it
> does not fully describe their atheistic stance. Thus, if we are to
> talk about all atheists, as a group, and don't wish to misrepresent
> anyone (you don't, do you?), then we are forced to stop at the passive
> lack.

If we are referring to all atheists, yes - but I am not. I'm referring
exclusively to atheists who deny the existence of God.

>
> Many people, theists and atheists alike, have taken pains to address
> this issue. Subdivisions of atheism have been proposed, including
> positive/negative; strong/weak; and implicit/explicit atheism. Given
> the attention this has been given from both sides of the issue, it
> seems unreasonable to dismiss negative/weak/implicit atheism as merely
> an imaginary construct to be dismissed.

I'm employing and invoking these distinctions - so no, I'm not
dismissing them.

>
> If you wish to talk about atheists and atheism in general, them I'm
> afraid you are force to limit yourself to the terms and definitions
> that do, in fact, address all atheists. In this case: a passive lack.
> If you wish to talk only of atheists who actively deny a god* then
> it'd probably be best to qualify your statements to that affect, or to
> explicitly state that you are only talking about that subset (however
> large it may be) of atheists.
>
> * - The issues is further complicated by the fact that, given the
> multitude of existing god-concepts (and the infinitude of potential
> god-concepts) that any given atheist can actively deny some, and only
> passively lack a belief in the others. For example, I actively deny
> the existence of the Christian God, but am more passive regarding,
> say, a pantheistic divine entity. So not only should you qualify or
> explain that you are talking about strong atheists when you are
> talking about strong atheists, but you should also include which god
> these atheists are actively denying as well.

An excellent point, for ease of conversation -I'll limit my discussion
to only the Judeo-Christian God.

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

[Drafterman]

On Feb 28, 11:12 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:16 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 9:43 am, "Ma-who?" <theh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 22, 11:17 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > because it is a lack of belief in anything.
> > > > Nothing exists.
>
> > > This is a theoretical construction of atheism which rarely exists in
> > > reality. I find the majority of atheists are not merely undecided, or
> > > lacking a firm position on the issue - but tend to lean towards
> > > *active denial* - that is, the belief that God *does not* exist, which
> > > is a claim, a belief, and in that regard no different from believing
> > > God *does* exist.
>
> > That atheists have beliefs in addition to, and outside, of their
> > atheism is irrelevant. I'm an atheist. I have many beliefs about many
> > things. I even believe in things for which I lack solid proof. There
> > are things in which I even take on faith (the normal, reasonable,
> > everyday definition of faith, rather than the absurd, stupid, willful
> > blindness of religious Faith).
>
> A curious, comical, and meaningless distinction ;)
> Faith is faith. You just don't like where theists put there's (and
> they may say the same of you).

I don't believe that you are qualified to make such statements about
my like's and dislikes.

>
>
>
> > But those things have nothing to do with my atheism, at least in
> > regard to affecting why I'm an atheist and what atheism means.
>
> > Atheism means a lack of belief in gods. Everything else is tangential.
>
> It means more than that, and beliefs, lifestyles, values, etc- which
> derive and depend upon an atheist position - surely must be considered
> along with their causing fundamental belief, atheism.

Except it doesn't. Atheists are not required to believe or accept
anything else. You will find that atheists run the gamut of other
philosophies and idealologies. I challenge you to name one other
belief that an atheists MUST accept/reject that isn't already part and
parcel with the rejection of gods.

>
> I will not say that humanism, or secularism, etc - are part of the
> definition of atheism, but we cannot pretend they are not part of the
> same topic- and should at least be considered when we talking about
> atheism generally - and it's alleged status as a religion.

They aren't, since there are theistic version of humanism. Secularism
is also widely supported by theists. Secularism isn't about atheism,
but rather that governments shouldn't consider religion in making laws
or policy.

>
> > What other beliefs I have, even if shared by all other atheists, is
> > irrelevant.
>
> > If, by some strange coincidence, all atheists on the planet suddenly
> > believed that the Sun had a molten chocolate center, that wouldn't add
> > to the definition of atheism:
> > "Believes that the sun has a molten chocolate center."
>
> Agreed, because a chocolate sun is not dependent or derivative upon
> your atheistic stance. However, if you came to believe that the point
> of life is to enjoy yourself (since there is no afterlife, God,
> eternal moral code or justice, etc) - that could be considered part of
> your atheism/atheist philosophy.

No, it would be it's own philosophy. Say... hedonism.

>
>
>
> > Now, confusion arises because "Lacks a belief in god" and "Actively
> > denies the existence of a god" are both covered by the same term:
> > atheism.
> > This collision of definitions does not negate the existence of either
> > one. It's just as invalid to say that, because many, most, or even all
> > atheists actively deny god then atheism is not a "lack of belief in
> > god" as it is to say that, because many, most, or even all atheists
> > passively lack a belief in god then atheism is not a "active denial of
> > god."
>
> I see your point, and there is no need for us to have a collision
> here. I am referring exclusively to atheists who actively deny God's
> existence. Those who merely lack a belief either way are not part of
> my argument here.

The problem is you aren't explicitly making that reference. You're
just talking about "atheists" without qualification and then expect
the rest of us to read your mind.

>
>
>
> > From a logical standpoint, in order to actively refute something, you
> > naturally must lack a belief in its existence or truth. From this
> > stance, active denial includes and requires a passive lack. The
> > passive lack, then, accounts for those that actively deny, even if it
> > does not fully describe their atheistic stance. Thus, if we are to
> > talk about all atheists, as a group, and don't wish to misrepresent
> > anyone (you don't, do you?), then we are forced to stop at the passive
> > lack.
>
> If we are referring to all atheists, yes - but I am not. I'm referring
> exclusively to atheists who deny the existence of God.
>
>
>
> > Many people, theists and atheists alike, have taken pains to address
> > this issue. Subdivisions of atheism have been proposed, including
> > positive/negative; strong/weak; and implicit/explicit atheism. Given
> > the attention this has been given from both sides of the issue, it
> > seems unreasonable to dismiss negative/weak/implicit atheism as merely
> > an imaginary construct to be dismissed.
>
> I'm employing and invoking these distinctions - so no, I'm not
> dismissing them.

Only now am I aware of you making this distinction.

> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Answer_42]

Not at all. Meaning 5 refers to a truth that is accepted by all,
except those who deny it. In other words, that which is being denied
is known to be true, except to those who deny it for whatever reason.
A good example is evolution... Many people deny that it took place.

This is why this particular meaning cannot be used to describe/define
atheism.

> When you find yourself in err, the respectable thing to do is simply
> admit the err and move on - an action which will get you exponentially
> more respect and recognition of decency than foolishly trying to dig
> yourself out of the hole you already created. You're only going
> further down..

Nope, I am actually trying to help you get out of your own hole.

>
>
>
>
> > As I said earlier, not one single atheist "denies" (as per meaning 5
> > above) the existence of gods--it does not make sense. How can a person
> > denies that which does not exist in their world view?
>
> > > I'm not going to waste anymore time
> > > explaining the obvious. For more information on distinctions and
> > > divisions between atheists, I encourage you to check wiki or read
> > > George H Smith's classic, Atheism.
>
> > You are thoroughly confused.
>
> > I believe you are referring to the often mentioned distinction
> > between"weak" and "strong" atheism. No matter how you define those two
> > categories, none of these two types of atheists "deny" that gods are
> > real as per meaning 5 above.
>
> Glad to see you're finally getting the drift. That distinction is also
> commonly referred to as positive/negative atheism - which I find more
> accurate and more appropriate. Perhaps now you can retract your
> previous denials of this fact:
>
> "Not one single atheist actively denies god's existence. " -you, a few
> posts ago

Based on meaning 5 above, this is still true, for the reasons I stated
above.

> Care to take that back now?

Nope.

> Or will "strong/positive" atheists
> disappear in the time between your last post and the next?

I did not say there was no such distinction, I only said that meaning
5 does not apply to either.

I encourage you to revisit this comment of mine:
-----
> > > > Think about what that actually means and what it implies.
-----

> > > > > > > or the adoration of
> > > > > > > nature, science, etc.  
>
> > > > > > Again, you make the mistake of thinkng that an atheist has no beliefs
> > > > > > whatsoever. Why is it that so many theists cannot wrap their
> > > > > > delusional mind around such a simlpe concept as atheism?
>
> > > > > > Ooops,I think I have answered my own question...
>
> > > > > No, you're completely misunderstanding my position, in almost
> > > > > unbelievable ways. I just stated above that atheists active denial of
> > > > > God qualifies as a belief.
>
> > > > So lacking a hobby means you have a hobby?
>
> > > A hobby is not a belief. Your analogy does not hold water.
>
> > It does.
> > You are claiming that LACKING a belief is a belief in itself.
>
> No, I am not. Active denial is the belief "God does not exist". That
> is not a lack of a belief - you seem to be confused by the fact that
> negative statements  can also express propositional content, and
> therefore qualify as a belief. If that's your difficulty, then just
> use a different phrasing, "God is an illusion"

I did not diagree with the basic premise, only that meaning 5 does not
apply to any type of atheists.To believe that gods do not exist is not
the same as to deny that they do not exist as per meaning 5 above.

I believe that A does not exist != I deny A exist.

To think that they are the same is to throw in a lot of assumptions
that atheists find unacceptable. You can assume whatever you want
about atheists, but when one actually tells you how wrong your
assumption is, based on objective semantic (see meaning 5 above) then
you should listen.

> > You clearly do not understand what "lacking a belief" means, hence the
> > analogy. I am trying to help.
>
> I appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid the nature of my argument
> still eludes you.

It does not. Your semantic usage is warped.

> Active denial is a belief, it has propositional
> content,

Use "disbelief" instead of active denial then, that is acceptable.

> and it is common among atheists. Meaning a core, common
> feature among atheists is a given belief, and the resulting belief
> system which builds upon and depends upon that core fact (the denial
> of God's existence).

There you go again with that dirty word...
:-p

disbelief != denial.

> > Here is another one:
> > Is bald a type of hairdo?
>
> Here's a better one - is nihilism a philosophy?

Yes, simply because nihilism is not defined as a lack of philosophy,
it is a philosophical stance in its own right.
Atheism, at its core, is defined as lack of belief, not as a denial of
that which is believed to be true by others.

<snip>

> > > > Of course it is not a non sequitur. the conclusion does follow from
> > > > the premise.
>
> > > I am biased by religion, therefore I think everyone has religion.
>
> > Not what I claimed.
> > I said that because you are biased by your own religiousness, you
> > think that atheism is a religion.
>
> That's exactly what I wrote above  - with only the slightest of
> rewording - with no change in meaning. Wtf.

Not at all, I am amazed that you cannot grasped the significant
difference. See below...

> "Because you are biased by religion - you think atheism is religion" =

Except that that which I was objecting to is:

"
I am biased by religion, therefore I think everyone has religion.
"

Do try to keep up!

> "You are baised by religion, therefore you think atheism is a
> religion".

> And in either case, it's still not an argument, there is no logic
> there,

There is logic.
It is logical that one who lives by a religion will be biased by the
fact that he lives by a religion.
How can you deny that?

See the proper usage of the word "deny" here? :-p

> there is no evidence there. You're giving me your own hollow
> speculation and opinion on my motivations. Which is, of course, it's
> own fallacy - an attack on the man (ad hominem).

Sigh!

Why are so amy theists so ignorant of the actual meaning of Ad
Hominem?

> You need to point out
> the flaws in my argument , my possible intent or bias

I did exactly that, remember? I claimed you were biased by the fact
you have a religion.

> here is
> irrelevant.
>
>
>
> > > That's a non-sequitur - your conclusion is not even remotely evidenced
> > > by the premise that I am biased by religion (which you have yet to
> > > prove anyways). Figure it out.
>
> > Strictly speaking, a non-sequitur has nothing to do with lack of
> > evidence. I could present an argument, warn that I am still looking
> > for evidence or supporting facts, but meanwhile, the conclusion can
> > still be logically valid based on the premise. A hypothetical argument
> > is not automatically a non-sequitur, or  else your god belief is anon-
> > sequitur in and of itself.
>
> It's a non-sequitur because the conclusion does not follow from the
> premises.

It does, every one can see that.
You may disagree, but it is still logical on its own, as a
proposition.

> the fact that the premise is entirely unevidenced is a whole
> other problem you have.

It si evidenced by the fact that you are religious and that you
claimed that someone without religion (such as myself) is actually a
religious person, just like you are.

<snip>

> > > I encourage you to check the definition of delusion,
>
> > Here, from the Merriam-Webster:
> > delusion:
> > "
> > 1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
> > "
>
> > to delude
> > "
> > 1 : to mislead the mind or judgment of
>
> This is a shitty definition, as I'm sure you know. We're not talking
> about the verb - to delude - we're talking about the noun 'delusion'

Great, now we learn that a delusion is not the result of being
deluded.

> - which has it's own definitions you've neglected to post here,

I did post it, see above, right there?
That very definition is what led me to include the definition of "to
delude"

> for
> obvious reasons.
>
> But it's still a vain attempt - you're only pissing into the wind here
> -because even the def you give, for delude, *requires* that the belief
> is actually false. Which you cannot prove. So you're still wrong.

All I need is a case whereby people are being misled to believe
something to be true without actual proof, evidence of any kind or
even any probability to speak of.

Now, show me how 2,000 years ago a woman could have give birth to a
boy without intercourse and I will retract my statement.

> > "
>
> > > which requires
> > > that the belief is false. My beliefs are not based on an ancient text
> > > alone,
>
> > Really?
> > So you have other experiences of people being brought back from the
> > dead 3 days after being dead?
> > You have personally witnessed someone getting pregnant without ever
> > having intercourse with another human being?

> > Please, do share.

> > > and if you feel you can prove them false- then let's hear it...

> > Seriously? You want me to prove that the avove two events are not
> > possible?

> Yes.

Well, YOU believe they are possible, so you explain why or how they
might be possible.

Meanwhile, I will rest my case on the fact that outside of that
ancient collection of legends and myths (and other similar STORIES),
it has never been known to happen anywhere, and neither are there any
conceivable way they could take place, outside of the realm of magic,
of course.

<snip>

> > Exactly!
> > And I provided a definition that does not refer to clinical delusions,
> > which are quite a different beast--and not what I was referring to in
> > relation to you. Now, had I been exchanging with Brock of Joe, I might
> > consider referring to clinical delusions in their cases...

> Exactly what type of delusion are you trying to imply I have then?

I mentioned two above, I thought that was obvious.
Ancient texts and well-meaning people, despite their good intentions,
misled you in believing that such events were possible without a shred
of evidence of any sort.

As I said elsewhere, you should try to objectively examined the
content of some of your religious beliefs and how you came to accept
them.
It would be most enlightening, I am sure.
_______________________________________________
Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be
seen as fundamentally deficient.
-- William Dembski

[TLC]

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the
politician and ridiculous to the philosopher," said Lucretius. And
behind many of the demands of today's religious apologists that we
"respect" Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and even the
Scientology cult lies a desire to keep the plebs in their place by
protecting their ridiculous but politically useful beliefs.

But the notion that in free countries atheism promotes intolerance and
immorality is demonstrably false. Last year, Californian sociologist
Phil Zuckerman responded with facts rather than witless abuse to
claims from Christian psychologists and theologians that atheists were
"selfish and pusillanimous curmudgeons", "unnatural" or "just damn
angry". He pulled together the available evidence and found that the
more atheists or agnostics a free society has the more moral it
becomes.

Predictably, atheists were far more likely to be tolerant supporters
of women's rights and gay rights than believers. The pope, like
militant Islamists, orthodox Jews and the ultras in every faith cannot
see that struggles for female and homosexual emancipation are among
the most moral causes of our age. But as believers in a sternly
misogynist and homophobic god, they must want to be tough on crime.

If so, they should welcome the contribution that atheists make to
promoting law and order. A study in the 1990s found that a meagre 0.2%
of the US prison population were atheists. In America, the states with
the highest murder rates tend to be highly religious, such as
Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates are
among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon.

True, there is some evidence to suggest that atheists and agnostics
are more likely to engage in underage drinking and illicit drug use.
But the wider conclusion on the links between crime and religious
belief holds good: if you want safe streets, move to a godless
neighbourhood.

Atheism and secularism, Zuckerman continued, are also correlated with
higher levels of education and lower levels of prejudice not only
against women and gays, but people from other ethnicities as well. For
good measure, atheists were less likely to beat their children and
more likely to encourage them to think independently.

In many US courtrooms, judges restrict or deny child custody rights to
atheist parents. If they want children to grow up to be law-abiding
citizens, and not end up back in court as juvenile delinquents, they
should stand that policy on its head.

What applies at city and state level applies internationally. Sweden,
the most secular country in the world, gives the highest proportion of
its gross domestic product in aid. Of the top 10 aid donors, only the
United States is a strongly religious country. Needless to add, the
oil-rich and religion-saturated Iran and Saudi Arabia are nowhere near
making the premier league of charitable nations, which should not be a
surprise because Iran concentrates its overseas efforts on exporting
terrorism, while Saudi Arabia uses its petrodollars to promote its
brutal Wahhabi theology.

An easy point to make is that secular democrats do not stone women to
death for adultery or murder Afghan teachers for the crime of teaching
girls to read and write. But it is not entirely irrelevant to the
argument about the papal visit. Robertson's and Dawkins's enemies can
accuse them of being "hysterical" and "abusive" and in the grip of the
"blind fervour of religious zealots" while knowing that secularists
will not respond by trying to kill them. Ever since the ayatollah
Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie they have not dared use the
same language about real abusive and hysterical zealots, who just
might.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedict-atheism-secularism

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

[TLC]

What the above artlcle by Nick Cohen points out is that atheists,
unlike religious believers, will think things out and not base their
view of life or/and ethics on books of out dated religious morality
given by a once upon time and an unprovable and unfounded Sky Fairy!

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-bened...

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -