You Are An Atheist IF...

[Word_Swordsman]

According to http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of
their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

At http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html they say
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."

A simple definition is at http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or at
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist "one who believes that there is
no deity".

I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
necessary to look that up for you atheists too.

Jim

[Simpleton]

On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>

> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>

> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is

> no deity".
>
> I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> the above.

It looks more like you spend 30 fruitless minutes then, because you
continue to live in denial.

You should thumped that bible, instead.

> NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism.

In that case, I suggest that you enroll in an English class.
Something to do in your retirement. You should learn "lack of belief"
means "do not believe", or "disbelief". It is not like a yom or "the
day with Lord being 1000 years or the other way around" or anything.

Even in Arkansas, which was what, like the 48th ranked state in
education?

Also, don't fall apart on us, Jimmy. I told you already.

> What is THEISM? Is it
> necessary to look that up for you atheists too.

No silly, that'd just be "Belief in god(s)". I bet they cover that in
the English class.

>
> Jim

[scooter]

On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

This definition seems to say that atheists lack a belief in the
supernatural (instead of "gods").

>
> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."

This definition says atheist lack a belief in god[s]. Absence of
belief IS a lack of belief. The first sentence is the only sentence
that defines the word. The rest of it is an attempt to describe where
that belief is derived. Comprende?

>
> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is
> no deity".

These definitions say that atheists lack a belief in god[s].

>
> I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
> necessary to look that up for you atheists too.

I'm not sure which word you are having the most problem with. Is it
"disbelieve" or what?

>
> Jim

[bonfly]

Swordswallower wrote"

"I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and

dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find ... NONE I could find
agree
... it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. "

bonfly responds:
If you had googled "lack of belief in God" (including the quote
marks),
you would have found what you were looking for ... in the vicinity of
15 thousand hits.

[Turner Hayes]

You guys, you need to lighten up on Jimmy. He didn't have his Bible study CDs! He was lost!

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

The above describes materialism; look up the word. It looks like some
bigwigs in the organization called American Atheists decided to define
materialism as Atheism. If all atheists were materialists, there could
be no non-materialist atheists like Jains. So, that definition is
wrong.

> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods.

This is where atheism is defined. Belief in gods is absent from a
lamppost but it isn't atheist because it's incapable of being theist.
A newborn is capable of being theist; all that needs to happen is for
one or more gods to show up and strut their stuff upon which the
newborn would believe in them just as it believes in its mother.

> This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible.

One starts out not believing and if one is unable to believe the
incredible, one continues not believing or in Anthony Flew's words,
one remains "innocent" of belief:
"My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of
innocence in the English law. The onus of proof...is up to the theist:
first, to introduce and defend his proposed concept of God; and,
second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept
of his does in fact have an application.
Antony Flew in God, Freedom, and Immortality.

> It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."

> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html

> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

> or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is
> no deity"

That would be a denier. Carefully note that the previous definition
includes also disbelievers.

> I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
> necessary to look that up for you atheists too.

Most certainly! Without explaining what theism is, how would the
typical baby know what it is? Come to think of it, it might be
necessary to define it for you too. Here's an exercise. Consider two
persons A & B.
A lacks belief in one set of gods*. B lacks belief in another set of
gods*.
* many of which gods he has never heard of
How would you determine whether either A or B is a theist?

[bonfly]

That's right, the 10 CD's that he doesn't have to cite because they
are produced by his denomination and so are therefore to be taken as
sources of 100% truth. He needs both ears boxed, first the right then
the left.

On Jul 22, 8:54 am, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys, you need to lighten up on Jimmy. He didn't have his Bible study
> CDs! He was lost!
>

[Medusa]

On Jul 21, 7:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Most certainly! Without explaining what theism is, how would the
> typical baby know what it is? Come to think of it, it might be
> necessary to define it for you too. Here's an exercise. Consider two
> persons A & B.
> A lacks belief in one set of gods*. B lacks belief in another set of
> gods*.
> * many of which gods he has never heard of
> How would you determine whether either A or B is a theist?

According to my traditional training in a Christian religion, a person
who has not heard of *the* god is a heathen.

Those who have heard of *the one true god* are atheists if they
believe no god exists.

Or they are just members of the WRONG religion if they believe in the
*wrong* god or gods.

All of the above are going to burn forever in some lake of fire. Nice
belief system, huh?

Medusa

[Deidzoeb]

On Jul 21, 4:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

They're adding way too much to it. They might be describing the
beliefs and conclusions of a lot of atheists, but if I was a school
teacher, I'd mark that definition incorrect.

> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>

> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is
> no deity".

Those three definitions sound correct.

> I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
> necessary to look that up for you atheists too.

Having "wimp wrists" or a desire or ability to catch crawfish, wearing
panties or lace, or puking has nothing to do with the definition that
SOME of the atheists here apply to themselves.

I agree that the American Atheist definition is not the same as
"lacking a belief in god." But that's because their definition is
incorrect.

The other three definitions you listed do not conflict with the
consensus A vs C definition of atheism, "lack of belief in god(s)".

"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of

gods." Absence of belief is synonymous with lack of belief. Except for
saying "characterized by" and adding a few more clarifying sentences,
this is a close paraphrase of the consensus A vs C definition.

Yourdictionary.com: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of
God or gods." Is there a big difference between "disbelieves" and
"lacks a belief in"?

"One who believes that there is no deity". I'm not sure if it's an
important difference, but "lacks a belief in" seems subtly different
than "believes there is no". Still, I'd almost say it means the same
thing.

[Dave]

On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> According to.....

I do not care who they are or what they claim to be. They do not
represent all of Atheism nor to they speak for all Atheists.

I doubt you are intelligent enough to understand that though. You will
continue with your army of inane strawmen no matter what.

[Dave]

On Jul 21, 3:54 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys, you need to lighten up on Jimmy. He didn't have his Bible study
> CDs! He was lost!

You're right. We should be kinder to those that are mentally ill.

[Keith MacNevins]

I'd say many of the atheists on this site qualify as heathens even if they don't precisely fit your definition.

[Word_Swordsman]

It came to a necessity to demonstrate the futility of finding an
atheist not turned over to a reprobate (unqualified) mind. They are
obviously unable to recognize their own ignorance, even unable to read
and comprehend established definitions. For them any definition
requires interpretation through atheist reading glasses. No wonder the
confusion. It's impossible to communicate with them.

So now, like with Bill Clinton and having to define "is" for him, we
must define "lack".

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lack
"1 : to be deficient or missing <time is lacking for a full
explanation>
2 : to be short or have need of something <he will not lack for
advisers>
transitive verb : to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or
deficiency of <lack the necessities of life>"

(Jim- any way you look at that lack means not having enough. In the
case of atheists the cause is not genetic, but refusal to fill the
lack of belief. Their lack is a choice.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack
To lack something is to not have it.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0008300.html
"n.
1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a
halt.
2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters,
the reforms did not succeed.
v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks
v.tr.
To be without or in need of: lacked the strength to lift the box.
v.intr.
1. To be missing or deficient: We suspected that he was lying, but
proof was lacking.
2. To be in need of something: She does not lack for friends."

It goes on and on like those. Like the proper accepted definitions for
"atheist", "lack" of belief simply means they don't have what it
takes. In their case it is a deliberate choice to remain in lack. Like
a "lack of decency". If one lacks decency, one is not decent.

Instead of owning up to the fact they choose not to believe in God,
something even devils believe in, they try to transfer their abject
ignorance over to honest people using simple English and standard
definitions. Anyone using typical meanings is considered ignorant by
atheists. The fact is set now here, the trap sprung.

Now we all know how foolish a person becomes by making such a stupid
choice of lifestyle. Your mind will become seared over until decency
is not attainable. Don't follow people like that. They will destroy
you even to the point you can't rely on a dictionary because of
paranoia ruling over you.

I'll keep chipping at this problem. I'm a guy standing there with a
sign "THEIR BRIDGE IS OUT" to perhaps save a few.

Jim

On Jul 21, 4:01 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

[Simpleton]

On Jul 22, 10:44 am, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It came to a necessity to demonstrate the futility of finding an
> atheist not turned over to a reprobate (unqualified) mind. They are
> obviously unable to recognize their own ignorance, even unable to read
> and comprehend established definitions. For them any definition
> requires interpretation through atheist reading glasses. No wonder the
> confusion. It's impossible to communicate with them.
>
> So now, like with Bill Clinton and having to define "is" for him, we
> must define "lack".
>

As I recall, Bill was from Arkansas. Hmmm, maybe a class in Little
Rock may not help. Try a neighboring state, Jimmy.

> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lack
> "1 : to be deficient or missing <time is lacking for a full
> explanation>

I think you missed this one. You see that "missing" part, Jimmy?

> 2 : to be short or have need of something <he will not lack for
> advisers>
> transitive verb : to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or
> deficiency of <lack the necessities of life>"
>
> (Jim- any way you look at that lack means not having enough. In the
> case of atheists the cause is not genetic, but refusal to fill the
> lack of belief. Their lack is a choice.)
>

So are you lacking signs of homosexuality?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack
> To lack something is to not have it.
>
> http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0008300.html
> "n.
> 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a
> halt.

I think you missed this one, too.

> 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters,
> the reforms did not succeed.
> v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks
> v.tr.
> To be without or in need of: lacked the strength to lift the box.
> v.intr.
> 1. To be missing or deficient: We suspected that he was lying, but
> proof was lacking.

I think you missed this one, too.

> 2. To be in need of something: She does not lack for friends."
>
> It goes on and on like those. Like the proper accepted definitions for
> "atheist", "lack" of belief simply means they don't have what it
> takes. In their case it is a deliberate choice to remain in lack. Like
> a "lack of decency". If one lacks decency, one is not decent.
>

> Instead of owning up to the fact they choose not to believe in God,
> something even devils believe in, they try to transfer their abject
> ignorance over to honest people using simple English and standard
> definitions. Anyone using typical meanings is considered ignorant by
> atheists. The fact is set now here, the trap sprung.
>

...and you got caught in it.

> Now we all know how foolish a person becomes by making such a stupid
> choice of lifestyle.

Hey that's quite OK, I do not judge you for the lifestyle you chose
buying $1200 worth of CDs.

> Your mind will become seared over until decency
> is not attainable. Don't follow people like that. They will destroy
> you even to the point you can't rely on a dictionary because of
> paranoia ruling over you.
>
> I'll keep chipping at this problem. I'm a guy standing there with a
> sign "THEIR BRIDGE IS OUT" to perhaps save a few.
>

In the meantime, consider getting an education. If you are ever
looking to buy a bridge, lemme know.

[Turner Hayes]

Why go to all this trouble? Don't your magical CDs have all the answers?

[scooter]

Ok, Turd Wordsman, or whatever the hell your moniker is. Let's look at
the 4 definitions you provided:

1) "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing

exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally
terminates
individual organic units."

This definition is not as congruent with the other 3 you provided.
Although, in a round-about fashion, it does discount existance of
supernatural beings. I.E., gods of religion are almost always of the
"supernatural" sort. (whatever the hell that means).

2) "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence
of
gods."

Look at your own definition of "lack", you fuckin dolt.

"http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0008300.html
"n.
1. Deficiency or absence"

Now look at the sentence: "...absence of belief..."

absence of belief = lack of belief = disbelief ---those phrases are
synonomous. Look up the word "synonomous", Mr, Turd Wordsman.

3) "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

disbelieve = lack of belief = absence of belief they're all synonomous

4) "one who believes that there is
no deity".

"..beleif that there is no" = disbelief = absence of belief = lack of
belief they're all synonomous.

Stop acting like an idiot.

If you think these definitions mean something other than "lack of
belief" then explain each definition, seperately, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
as to what you think they mean. And, stop acting like a fuckin
crybaby.

P.S. what do you want "atheism" to mean? Go ahead and give us YOUR
definition--IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

On Jul 22, 12:44 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[MrCool]

I doubt you'll find a single dictionary that argrees with your first
definition from atheists.org, it's way too specific.

The only one of your definitions that DOESN'T describe a lack of
belief (which is the same as disbelief, or absence of belief, etc.) is
this one and the one from Merriam webster dictionary. Now look at the
Merrian webster entry for *atheism" not *atheist*.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism - entry 2a - "a
disbelief in the existence of deity".

So you missed in 30 minutes, what it took me 2 minutes to find to find
several examples of in *your own search results*? Not too bright are
you?

But if you don't like calling me an atheist though, fine, call me a
non-theist, I don't care. I hold no special attachment to the word,
and just because you want the word to mean something different to what
I mean, doesn't change what my actual beliefs/non-beliefs are.

On 21 Jul, 22:49, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>

> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>

> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is

[Word_Swordsman]

OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."

Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough
to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack. If you lack food you
become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not
desirable. If you LACK something you are not complete. If someone says
"I lack patience", that is equivalent to "I am impatient". You can
either tolerate delay or you cannot. If your fuse blows too soon you
say "I am impatient within 5 minutes, but used to last an hour." In
either case lack of patience means you are impatient. If you LACK
belief in a God you are atheist.

I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly
incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
amazing to watch.

Jim

On Jul 22, 3:31 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[bonfly]

Scooter to Sword_Swallower "Stop acting like an idiot."

Bonfly to Scooter (whispers) "it's not an act."

[Turner Hayes]

Ladies and Gentlemen, Word_Swordsman! Let's give him a round of applause!

And next up here at the Laff Factory: Michael Richards!

On 7/22/07, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitab...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ralph_S]

The first thing the first dictionary I picked up said under lack was:
To be without. To be short of, to require, to be wanting or deficient
were numbers 2, 3 and 4, respectively.

The negative connotation you assign to the word lack in the context of
"lack of belief in god(s)" probably is a result of your own bias. If
the word lack gives you too much trouble: an atheist is a person who
does not believe in god(s). Clear enough for you?

Cheers,
Ralph

[SEARCHER]

A rock to define a rock. But what do I know? Shalom.

On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>

> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>

> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is

[SEARCHER]

Believing means believing. But what do I know? Shalom.

On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>

> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>

> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is

[SEARCHER]

You might be an atheist if you are in D'Nile. But what do I know.

On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ you believe any of

> their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>

> Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmlthey say

> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>

> A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 21, 4:12 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

> > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/you believe any of

> > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>
> This definition seems to say that atheists lack a belief in the
> supernatural (instead of "gods").

Let me fix that for you. Deity is considered among the educated as
"supernatural entity". That can be regarded as a being, or maybe a
river of energy flowing over earth and making a circuit around the
universe. Therefore, atheists don't believe in deity or the
supernatural in general, but might believe in say a lightning bolt as
something suitably natural enough to stand in awe of something besides
themselves.

> > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is no deity".
>
> These definitions say that atheists lack a belief in god[s].

A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve
something is to choose not to believe. UNbelief is lack of sufficient
belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person
is not far from believing. Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe
that regardless of any evidence." A disbeliever therefore must go on
to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either. That defines
UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist
is an anti theist. A believer is a pro-theist. Now wasn't that simple
enough?

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

I'm not interested in sanitized definitions among atheists that are
beginning to question why they are in such a mess. This is similar to
secular scientists having to redefine science terms to make evolution
make more sense. The educated, the people of common sense, possibly
some aborigines in the tip of Africa can comprehend certain basic
concepts liker lacking something. "We lack water here." Well, if
someone doesn't fix that lack those people will die. If one
continually lacks water, it is insufficient, and eventually one
dehydrates and dies. "Poor guy. He died from lack of water." Get
it? :) Probably not.

[Word_Swordsman]

So far, Grasshopper, your master has referred to the holy discs once
since coming here, to look up some stuff about the Roman Empire. I
mostly write from what I've learned over a lifetime. About all you
atheists can do is copy/paste your own posts and change the words
around to maintain a very ignorant discussion. Notice I didn't say
"debate". You lost that. It's back to a discussion, like between the
Mayor and a homeless guy on meth in an alley. The Mayor says "You must
stop cutting your body parts off here. This is a public building where
good citizens come and go."

"Hue it, Hez. Who am I? OK, you win. Jek. I said Jek. Huh? Anybody
looking? Pull the shades! Where's my peep, Hez?"

The Mayor represents fairly sane comment. The meth head represents an
atheist mind turned reprobate. He stays stuck like that.

On Jul 21, 5:54 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

[MrCool]

On 22 Jul, 23:16, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."

Except you have been shown completely wrong. Your definitions state
that atheism is a lack of a belief.

> Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough
> to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack. If you lack food you
> become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
> you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not
> desirable.

Oh dear. What about lacking a desire to kill? What about lacking
stupidity? What about lacking the ability to rape children? By your
reasoning, those aren't desireable positions to be in. This had got
to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

> If you LACK something you are not complete. If someone says
> "I lack patience", that is equivalent to "I am impatient". You can
> either tolerate delay or you cannot.

That's right, and I lack a belief in God, you either believe He exists
or you don't believe He exists.

> If your fuse blows too soon you
> say "I am impatient within 5 minutes, but used to last an hour." In
> either case lack of patience means you are impatient. If you LACK
> belief in a God you are atheist.

Yay! you finally understand that atheism is a lack of a belief. Now
you just have to get your head around the word "lack".

> I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
> Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly
> incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
> amazing to watch.

erm...what are you on about. Why are you talking about blaspheming?
Now's who's become increasingly incoherent?

> Jim
>
> On Jul 22, 3:31 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why did you snip my entire post and address virtually none of it. I
take you see now that all of your own sources (except atheists.org)
show that atheism is a lack of a belief in God.

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 21, 7:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmltheysay

> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > gods.
>
> This is where atheism is defined. Belief in gods is absent from a
> lamppost but it isn't atheist because it's incapable of being theist.
> A newborn is capable of being theist; all that needs to happen is for
> one or more gods to show up and strut their stuff upon which the
> newborn would believe in them just as it believes in its mother.

No mother or child expert would agree an infant could choose to
believe in deity or comprehend deity. You have become mad. You
probably believe the family dog could become an expert in nuclear
physics. Ah, but I understand. We discriminate against them, not
giving them a chance to strut their stuff.

> > This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> > deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> > teachings which seem literally incredible.
>
> One starts out not believing and if one is unable to believe the
> incredible, one continues not believing or in Anthony Flew's words,
> one remains "innocent" of belief:

One starts out not knowing anything except what to do when lips reach
a warm nipple.

> "My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of
> innocence in the English law. The onus of proof...is up to the theist:
> first, to introduce and defend his proposed concept of God; and,
> second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept
> of his does in fact have an application.
> Antony Flew in God, Freedom, and Immortality.

Therefore, according to that statement no prosecuting attorney will
present evidence against the theist before the theist makes his case.
No accusation, no trial, no condemnation, UNTIL the theist is
DISPROVED. He is then put on trial and accused then tried and
condemned or turned loose. You see, the defendant is never required to
PROVE INNOCENCE. He must be considered as though ACQUITTED until
proved guilty while being treated as innocent. Fine analogy there
(?). Hey, just one more example of a reprobate mind there. Flew's
mind has flown.

Here's the thing. Theist preaches the gospel to a crowd enjoying it.
Atheist walks by, is offended, and has theist arrested for violating
his right to hear only what he wants to hear. At the trial, will the
theist be tried for his message, or for saying words the atheist just
didn't want to hear? Now if the atheist was captured and kept in a
cell, forced to hear the Bible read through every 90 hours for 3
months, that atheist might have something credible to seek justice
over. Even then, would the trial be over the message, or the way it
was delivered? Take it a bit further. Which would be a crime?
Preaching in public, or brainwashing a captive against his will? So
which of you atheists has a case? If the message, why listen? If
public speech, why be an American living under present Constitution?

> > It is not a lack of belief
> > born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
> > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
> > or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is
> > no deity"
>
> That would be a denier. Carefully note that the previous definition
> includes also disbelievers.

Hee Yah! We got ya going now! Denier is one who could know but says
not. A liar. Or, rejects an accusation. "You are a cheater." "No, I
am not a cheater." That's a denial whether the one denying is a
cheater or not. So, do you like that one as applied to atheists? If
so, that makes atheists liars, and they are immoral. To disbelieve is
to choose not to believe something. "I believe in God." "Sorry, but I
do not believe in God." The second person is a disbeliever talking to
a believer. What's so hard to understand about that?

> > I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> > dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> > the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> > crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> > it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
> > necessary to look that up for you atheists too.
>
> Most certainly! Without explaining what theism is, how would the
> typical baby know what it is? Come to think of it, it might be
> necessary to define it for you too. Here's an exercise. Consider two
> persons A & B.
> A lacks belief in one set of gods*. B lacks belief in another set of
> gods*.
> * many of which gods he has never heard of
> How would you determine whether either A or B is a theist?

If ONE of many sets are rejected, that leaves plenty of room for
thinking that one believes in another set of gods. That one is a
theist until he rejects all sets of gods. Then he becomes an atheist.

IF this place was titled Atheism vs. Theism I wouldn't have been
interested in coming here. Instead we have a group not believing in
any deity vs a group believing in a specific God and God-way.

Jim

[Dave]

On Jul 22, 3:12 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not interested in sanitized definitions among atheists that are
> beginning to question why they are in such a mess.

Of course not. If you were interested you might actually learn
something. Instead you just continue to keep your mind tightly closed
and make a fool of yourself. Your sword is getting dull from disuse.

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 21, 7:32 pm, bonfly <anub...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> That's right, the 10 CD's that he doesn't have to cite because they
> are produced by his denomination and so are therefore to be taken as
> sources of 100% truth. He needs both ears boxed, first the right then
> the left.

Jealous? I have at my disposal everything you could get access to plus
stuff you'd have to pay to get at. Furthermore, many sources don't
cater to atheists, so you are EXCLUDED. I love that word. You must
certify who you are and have proper references to even join. My
memberships are FREE for life. Well, included in the collection, one
you will never own. It's for GOD'S CHILDREN. No devil child can see
it.

Eat your heart out.

Jim

[MrCool]

On 23 Jul, 00:07, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 4:12 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>

> > > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/youbelieve any of

> > > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>
> > This definition seems to say that atheists lack a belief in the
> > supernatural (instead of "gods").
>
> Let me fix that for you. Deity is considered among the educated as
> "supernatural entity". That can be regarded as a being, or maybe a
> river of energy flowing over earth and making a circuit around the
> universe. Therefore, atheists don't believe in deity or the
> supernatural in general, but might believe in say a lightning bolt as
> something suitably natural enough to stand in awe of something besides
> themselves.
>
> > > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is no deity".
>
> > These definitions say that atheists lack a belief in god[s].
>
> A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve
> something is to choose not to believe. UNbelief is lack of sufficient
> belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person
> is not far from believing. Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe
> that regardless of any evidence."

Don't abandon your dictionaries now, you started this.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelieve. 1. "to have no
belief in"

There's nothing about evidence or choice. Unbelief also fits,
although your definition is ridiculously circular. There can be more
than one word for something you know.

> A disbeliever therefore must go on
> to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
> not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either.

not a believer = have no belief = disbeliever. easy.

> That defines
> UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist
> is an anti theist. A believer is a pro-theist. Now wasn't that simple
> enough?

Why abandon your dictionaries now? Because you know they're not
agreeing with you?

> Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 21, 7:48 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Or they are just members of the WRONG religion if they believe in the
> *wrong* god or gods.

I thought you were on the right track until getting to that part. I
don't consider a Hindu to be an atheist at all, far from it, though I
am convinced any Hindu has missed the right God unless he worships
only Jesus. Heathen he is.

> All of the above are going to burn forever in some lake of fire. Nice
> belief system, huh?
>
> Medusa

A little rough on rebels, I agree. But I have to agree on the
sentence, suitably rough. We have a lot of folks this generation soft
on crime, wanting to release all child sexual predators from prisons
and give them lots more chances to fit in to an orderly society. I
disagree. Throw the key away. It just doesn't seem quite enough to
just know they will burn alive for eternity.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 21, 9:25 pm, Deidzoeb <deidz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 21, 4:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

> > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/you believe any of

> > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>
> They're adding way too much to it. They might be describing the
> beliefs and conclusions of a lot of atheists, but if I was a school
> teacher, I'd mark that definition incorrect.

Obviously you are NOT a teacher. But let's play the part. Teacher,
what SUPERNATURAL things
DOES an atheist believe? Maybe we will all learn something here today,
folks. You reject the above definition that states atheists don't
believe in anything supernatural, but accept only natural. If that is
wrong, WHICH supernatural things are believed?

> > Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmltheysay

> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> > deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> > teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> > born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>
> > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is
> > no deity".
>
> Those three definitions sound correct.

Which is exactly what the big definition you reject says. No deity, no
supernatural. Atheist ONLY believe in the NATURAL, what we Christians
call CREATED and in some cases reproduced.

> > I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> > dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> > the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> > crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> > it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
> > necessary to look that up for you atheists too.
>
> Having "wimp wrists" or a desire or ability to catch crawfish, wearing
> panties or lace, or puking has nothing to do with the definition that
> SOME of the atheists here apply to themselves.

All of that describes the cowardly fearful actions expressed by
atheists here trying to escape a strong condemnation, forcing them out
of being CLOSET ATHEISTS.

> I agree that the American Atheist definition is not the same as
> "lacking a belief in god." But that's because their definition is
> incorrect.

Then answer my question. Don't forget. WHICH supernatural things DO
atheists believe in?

> The other three definitions you listed do not conflict with the
> consensus A vs C definition of atheism, "lack of belief in god(s)".
>
> "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> gods." Absence of belief is synonymous with lack of belief. Except for
> saying "characterized by" and adding a few more clarifying sentences,
> this is a close paraphrase of the consensus A vs C definition.
>
> Yourdictionary.com: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of
> God or gods." Is there a big difference between "disbelieves" and
> "lacks a belief in"?

BIG difference! Some Christians can handle everything of the Bible
except perhaps speaking in tongues. They lack a belief in the need or
continued existence of that spiritual gift. We call that group
"unbeliever". Most don't completely reject the idea, but won't
exercise that gift. A person disbelieves in speaking in tongues if
they firmly reject that and teach to avoid doing it. If they go too
far claiming speaking in tongues is actually serving Satan, they
become blasphemers if they know the Bible says that is a gift from
God. Even though they believe everything else, calling something the
Spirit does is an evil thing results in unforgiveness.

> "One who believes that there is no deity". I'm not sure if it's an
> important difference, but "lacks a belief in" seems subtly different
> than "believes there is no". Still, I'd almost say it means the same
> thing.

1. "She lacked taking one exam, or would have graduated."

2. "She refused to take the final exam because she refused to believe
she had to take it, so she flunked out."

3. "She lacked belief not taking the exam would cause her to not
graduate."

Would any explanation excuse her insufficiency enough to be awarded a
passing grade?

Is there any difference between those lines?

Case one: There might be some valid reason for helping her out. We
don't know the nature of her lack, whether from ignorance or policies,
or a rebellion.

Case two: Ignorance plus rebellion, refusing to find out for sure what
was required. She should have taken it anyway just to cover the
bases.

Case three: Made a hazardous assumption that turned out wrong. Maybe
she listened to other students that flunked too. Maybe she just didn't
believe the final exam was that important. After all, she made Cs all
semester. Well, 1/4 of her grade happened to be from the final exam.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

The atheists on this group have become so disoriented they can't
settle on a definition in any dictionary? None of the online atheist
associations define your disbelief in deity?

Jim

[scooter]

On Jul 22, 5:07 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 21, 4:12 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>

> > > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/youbelieve any of

> > > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>
> > This definition seems to say that atheists lack a belief in the
> > supernatural (instead of "gods").
>
> Let me fix that for you. Deity is considered among the educated as
> "supernatural entity".

Let me fix that for you: No where in any of this passage do they use
the word "deity". Amoung the educated, we don't randomly insert words
into passages for expediancy. It compromises academic integrity. While
the word "deity" may be implied in something atheists reject, it's
really a particular that may be included in a category of
"supernatural". So, your point is moot.

> That can be regarded as a being, or maybe a
> river of energy flowing over earth and making a circuit around the
> universe. Therefore, atheists don't believe in deity or the
> supernatural in general, but might believe in say a lightning bolt as
> something suitably natural enough to stand in awe of something besides
> themselves.

Nothing can "be regarded" as "supernatural". There are no examples of
"supernatural nor any evidence to even support such an absurd
conjecture.

I fail to see the point of you reiterating that atheists do not
believe in the "supernatural". Do you have one? Or, is it just a bunch
of word salad?

>
> > > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is no deity".
>
> > These definitions say that atheists lack a belief in god[s].
>
> A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve
> something is to choose not to believe. UNbelief is lack of sufficient
> belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person
> is not far from believing. Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe
> that regardless of any evidence." A disbeliever therefore must go on
> to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
> not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either. That defines
> UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist
> is an anti theist. A believer is a pro-theist. Now wasn't that simple
> enough?

You're right. You don't seem to understand. Whether you disbelieve or
are a nonbeliever/unbeliever, you employ a lack of belief. You can
split hairs all you want, your point is moot. Now, wasn't that simple?
And, I would say an agnostic is "somewhere between a theist and a non-
theist."

Another thing: Go ahead and define atheist however you want. It won't
change a thing. People who disbelieve are rejecting the assertion of a
god[s] and, in practice, those who are non-believers have done the
same thing. In both cases, they lack belief.

Finally, you theists have a mental condition of seeing all things in
black and white. You think in absolutes. Of course, it shouldn't be a
surprise. After all, you pray to invisable stuff, too. That reminds me
of one of my favorite threads--ever--from this group. It was titled
"Is prayer retarded?" I think we should bring that one back. Here it
is:

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/4d2d0e7838a85cd4?scoring=d&q=prayer+retarded&

>
> Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

Being a heathen is often far better than atheist. God ignores atheists
until they get in the way. He calls them fools. Of course atheists are
heathens. Heathens are outside the family of God, as are atheists. The
heathen are often believers in false gods. Some don't care about it,
worshipping their belly. So whatever level of theism they accept keeps
them heathens until they believe in the right God. But atheists don't
believe in god(s), so will not believe in the right god, rejecting all
gods. They deny the existence of deity so won't shop around for a
"right god" to worship. Two different animals there, but with
something in common.

Jim

[Observer]

On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."
>
> Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough
> to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack.

Observer
.
We lack faith in the hideous sadistic mythological monster you
worship.
We lack the inherent hatred to preach dehumanizing filth to our
neighbors .
We lack the unreasonable fear of death leading to these stupid ideas.
We lack the sadomasochistic drive to support your psychotic
superstition.

Most of all we lack the need for a god thing.

If you lack food you
> become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
> you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not
> desirable.

Observer
I guess that as a dumb ass Christian you would say that a lack of
cancer is a bad thing .

If you LACK something you are not complete. If someone says
> "I lack patience", that is equivalent to "I am impatient". You can
> either tolerate delay or you cannot. If your fuse blows too soon you
> say "I am impatient within 5 minutes, but used to last an hour." In
> either case lack of patience means you are impatient. If you LACK
> belief in a God you are atheist.

Observer
It is a good thing that you worked for the government for a living ,
you would have sure fucked up the business world or the scientific
community. How did you get so stupid ?

>
> I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet?

Observer
Oh by the way blasphemy is a victimless crime.

There's hope for you.
> Watch the lives of the blasphemers here.

Observer
Fuck the holey ghost and fuck your three headed god thing.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 1:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

> > So now, like with Bill Clinton and having to define "is" for him, we
> > must define "lack".
>

> As I recall, Bill was from Arkansas. Hmmm, maybe a class in Little
> Rock may not help. Try a neighboring state, Jimmy.

I figure you got quite duped over him. I didn't vote for the guy. We
knew about him.

> >http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lack
> > "1 : to be deficient or missing <time is lacking for a full
> > explanation>
>

> I think you missed this one. You see that "missing" part, Jimmy?

Yep, I see that. You are missing something, like some genes?
Deficiency can result in deformation. Got one eye above the nose? No
deficiency is a good thing.

> > 2 : to be short or have need of something <he will not lack for
> > advisers>
> > transitive verb : to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or
> > deficiency of <lack the necessities of life>"
>
> > (Jim- any way you look at that lack means not having enough. In the
> > case of atheists the cause is not genetic, but refusal to fill the
> > lack of belief. Their lack is a choice.)

Yep, what I've been saying all along. A CHOICE to reject.

> So are you lacking signs of homosexuality?

Unlike apparently yourself thinking along such lines, I am anti-homo
the way an atheist is anti-deity. But understand there is no power or
likelihood of an atheist rejecting homosexuality since rejection of it
is mostly based on religion-based morality.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack
> > To lack something is to not have it.
>
> >http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0008300.html
> > "n.
> > 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a
> > halt.
>

> I think you missed this one, too.

No, you atheists continue to miss the point. If you lack the money to
finish the project, the project doesn't get finished. It at least
stops. No progress. Lack does that. Progress is only possible when
there is no lack of resources.

> > 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters,
> > the reforms did not succeed.
> > v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks
> > v.tr.
> > To be without or in need of: lacked the strength to lift the box.
> > v.intr.
> > 1. To be missing or deficient: We suspected that he was lying, but
> > proof was lacking.
>

> I think you missed this one, too.

Nah, I got it right. Atheists are short of....enough not to
possess....you have enough or you don't. There's a fine line for
whatever it is you need. With food it could be one calorie. "If he
could have had just one more calorie to give us one more minute..."Out
of thousands of calories that last one made all the difference in
starve or survive.

> > 2. To be in need of something: She does not lack for friends."
>
> > It goes on and on like those. Like the proper accepted definitions for
> > "atheist", "lack" of belief simply means they don't have what it
> > takes. In their case it is a deliberate choice to remain in lack. Like
> > a "lack of decency". If one lacks decency, one is not decent.
>
> > Instead of owning up to the fact they choose not to believe in God,
> > something even devils believe in, they try to transfer their abject
> > ignorance over to honest people using simple English and standard
> > definitions. Anyone using typical meanings is considered ignorant by
> > atheists. The fact is set now here, the trap sprung.
>

> ...and you got caught in it.

Well now, you SAY that but don't explain how the rat trapped the
farmer. HOW are you not the rat?

> > Now we all know how foolish a person becomes by making such a stupid
> > choice of lifestyle.
>

> Hey that's quite OK, I do not judge you for the lifestyle you chose
> buying $1200 worth of CDs.

It appears you have not bothered to take part in a college education.
Hardly anyone attends an actual class now except a few requiring it.
You have to buy the CDs that link you to broadcast sessions of
professors. The homework is on them, the background libraries, links
to all university libraries that have been digitized, so are the
exams. If you don't buy them you use the public library and attend
classes. The CDs contain everything you could possibly need to cover
the course. The last 4 discs were DVDs that complete the library of
any minister possibly going to some part of the world where there are
no sufficient resources or internet. A pastor would have all he needs
on a laptop even without internet access, including a complete set of
aids like RosettaStone to learn languages. Eat your heart out.

> > Your mind will become seared over until decency
> > is not attainable. Don't follow people like that. They will destroy
> > you even to the point you can't rely on a dictionary because of
> > paranoia ruling over you.
>
> > I'll keep chipping at this problem. I'm a guy standing there with a
> > sign "THEIR BRIDGE IS OUT" to perhaps save a few.
>

> In the meantime, consider getting an education. If you are ever
> looking to buy a bridge, lemme know.

If you are not a realtor with access to a bridge for sale or at least
a reasonable possibility of access I'd say you are lying. I accept
that as typical of an atheist.

I, however, used an analogy most people understand as commonly used of
a "watchman on the wall".

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "..beleif that there is no" = disbelief = absence of belief = lack of
> belief they're all synonomous.
>

I do know a moron. We don't call the boy a moron, but everyone knows
he is.
We just work around that and help him out. Teachers teach him how to
look up numbers in the phone book every day. We hope he'll remember
how at last someday. Your statement is moronic. Although there might
be shared synonyms for all 4 scenarios, synonyms are not equal to
definitions. :) Gotcha.

> If you think these definitions mean something other than "lack of
> belief" then explain each definition, seperately, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
> as to what you think they mean. And, stop acting like a fuckin
> crybaby.

Oh, my, you inject such barbarism! NBy now you've possibly read my
answers to other slightly more civil atheists.

> P.S. what do you want "atheism" to mean? Go ahead and give us YOUR
> definition--IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

Against existence of deity. The "A" in the word "atheism" means one
thing. AGAINST. A DISbelief. A REJECTION of a fact whether verifiable
or not. It's like "Abiotic. Something that kills life or prevents it.
"The "theism" part limits the problem to deity. An atheist MUST then
be against a belief in deity. If one doesn't reject the idea of
existence of deity, then one is not an atheist, but something else. If
you might not be an atheist, and are not a Christian, then why are you
HERE?

Jim

[Auntie Bubbles]

On Jul 22, 3:12 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm not interested in sanitized definitions among atheists that are
> beginning to question why they are in such a mess. This is similar to
> secular scientists having to redefine science terms to make evolution
> make more sense. The educated, the people of common sense, possibly
> some aborigines in the tip of Africa can comprehend certain basic
> concepts liker lacking something. "We lack water here." Well, if
> someone doesn't fix that lack those people will die. If one
> continually lacks water, it is insufficient, and eventually one
> dehydrates and dies. "Poor guy. He died from lack of water." Get
> it? :) Probably not.

I lack ignorance and depravity and hatred and anger. Does this mean I
need more of these things?

[Turner Hayes]

On 7/22/07, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitab...@gmail.com> wrote:

Source: Mythical Magical Bible Study CD set

[Simpleton]

On Jul 22, 5:28 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 22, 1:10 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > > So now, like with Bill Clinton and having to define "is" for him, we
> > > must define "lack".
>
> > As I recall, Bill was from Arkansas. Hmmm, maybe a class in Little
> > Rock may not help. Try a neighboring state, Jimmy.
>
> I figure you got quite duped over him. I didn't vote for the guy. We
> knew about him.
>

Be that as it may, you should take no chances, and take an English
class in one the neighboring states, Jimmy.

> > >http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lack
> > > "1 : to be deficient or missing <time is lacking for a full
> > > explanation>
>
> > I think you missed this one. You see that "missing" part, Jimmy?
>
> Yep, I see that.

Good, now take that English class, and figure out what it means.

> You are missing something, like some genes?

Why, have you heard of them?

> Deficiency can result in deformation. Got one eye above the nose? No
> deficiency is a good thing.
>

Well, if it'll make you feel better, go ahead, and get that third eye
above your nose, then.

> > > 2 : to be short or have need of something <he will not lack for
> > > advisers>
> > > transitive verb : to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or
> > > deficiency of <lack the necessities of life>"
>
> > > (Jim- any way you look at that lack means not having enough. In the
> > > case of atheists the cause is not genetic, but refusal to fill the
> > > lack of belief. Their lack is a choice.)
>
> Yep, what I've been saying all along. A CHOICE to reject.
>

You *are* falling apart, when you start responding to your material.

> > So are you lacking signs of homosexuality?
>
> Unlike apparently yourself thinking along such lines, I am anti-homo
> the way an atheist is anti-deity.

Which does not explain why you will not confirm if you are lacking
signs of homosexuality.

> But understand there is no power or
> likelihood of an atheist rejecting homosexuality since rejection of it
> is mostly based on religion-based morality.
>

Oh, so *you* being the religious type and all have to fight it off
each morning. Do you fight it before or after your prayers, Jimmy?

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack
> > > To lack something is to not have it.
>
> > >http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0008300.html
> > > "n.
> > > 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a
> > > halt.
>
> > I think you missed this one, too.
>
> No, you atheists continue to miss the point.

Absence means it is not present, Jimmy.

> If you lack the money to
> finish the project, the project doesn't get finished. It at least
> stops. No progress. Lack does that. Progress is only possible when
> there is no lack of resources.
>

Pretty sure you missed it.

> > > 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters,
> > > the reforms did not succeed.
> > > v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks
> > > v.tr.
> > > To be without or in need of: lacked the strength to lift the box.
> > > v.intr.
> > > 1. To be missing or deficient: We suspected that he was lying, but
> > > proof was lacking.
>
> > I think you missed this one, too.
>
> Nah, I got it right.

Nah, you missed it. It is the very first one, Jimmy.

> Atheists are short of....enough not to
> possess....you have enough or you don't. There's a fine line for
> whatever it is you need. With food it could be one calorie. "If he
> could have had just one more calorie to give us one more minute..."Out
> of thousands of calories that last one made all the difference in
> starve or survive.
>

Missing means not present, Jimmy. It's like your point.

> > > 2. To be in need of something: She does not lack for friends."
>
> > > It goes on and on like those. Like the proper accepted definitions for
> > > "atheist", "lack" of belief simply means they don't have what it
> > > takes. In their case it is a deliberate choice to remain in lack. Like
> > > a "lack of decency". If one lacks decency, one is not decent.
>
> > > Instead of owning up to the fact they choose not to believe in God,
> > > something even devils believe in, they try to transfer their abject
> > > ignorance over to honest people using simple English and standard
> > > definitions. Anyone using typical meanings is considered ignorant by
> > > atheists. The fact is set now here, the trap sprung.
>
> > ...and you got caught in it.
>
> Well now, you SAY that but don't explain how the rat trapped the
> farmer. HOW are you not the rat?
>

Because you are, and you got caught posting definition that indicate
exactly what I had claimed.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

All your posts since then have merely confirmed it.

> > > Now we all know how foolish a person becomes by making such a stupid
> > > choice of lifestyle.
>
> > Hey that's quite OK, I do not judge you for the lifestyle you chose
> > buying $1200 worth of CDs.
>
> It appears you have not bothered to take part in a college education.

It would appear that you wasted yours.

> Hardly anyone attends an actual class now except a few requiring it.

Well, get to a neighboring state, Jimmy.

> You have to buy the CDs that link you to broadcast sessions of
> professors. The homework is on them, the background libraries, links
> to all university libraries that have been digitized, so are the
> exams. If you don't buy them you use the public library and attend
> classes. The CDs contain everything you could possibly need to cover
> the course. The last 4 discs were DVDs that complete the library of
> any minister possibly going to some part of the world where there are
> no sufficient resources or internet. A pastor would have all he needs
> on a laptop even without internet access, including a complete set of
> aids like RosettaStone to learn languages. Eat your heart out.
>

Well, you are the one out $1200. See if you have saved it, you could
have gotten that class that you so badly need.

> > > Your mind will become seared over until decency
> > > is not attainable. Don't follow people like that. They will destroy
> > > you even to the point you can't rely on a dictionary because of
> > > paranoia ruling over you.
>
> > > I'll keep chipping at this problem. I'm a guy standing there with a
> > > sign "THEIR BRIDGE IS OUT" to perhaps save a few.
>
> > In the meantime, consider getting an education. If you are ever
> > looking to buy a bridge, lemme know.
>
> If you are not a realtor with access to a bridge for sale or at least
> a reasonable possibility of access I'd say you are lying. I accept
> that as typical of an atheist.
>
> I, however, used an analogy most people understand as commonly used of
> a "watchman on the wall".
>

Yup, the BS in Forestry has really paid off, Jimmy.

> Jim

[Simpleton]

On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
> Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly

> incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
> amazing to watch.
>

Thank you, it indeed is.

Let's see if you can take it up a notch. Atheism is a lack of belief
in god(s).

[Word_Swordsman]

You are agreeing with my thread of posts! "You lack the required $5
for the ticket since you only have $4. You may not watch the movie."
Lack is equal to not having what is necessary. The movie goer lacked
only $1. He lacked having what was needed. His $4 was useless for the
intended goal. Any atheist lacking in any amount towards believing
deity exists falls short of believing in existence of deity. One
believes deity exists or does not believe that. It's YES or NO. In the
case of an atheist it has to be a CHOICE, not a birth defect or some
failure of an infant to pick up on information parents are talking
about. The baby just looks at them and finally smiles, someday
crawling, maybe saying "Daddy". An infant is not expected to engage in
apologetics at age 6 months. I suppose you believe it's common for a
newborn to come out of the womb preaching a sermon? At what age could
a child be expected to offer prayer over a meal? It's been age 3 for
ours. Can they explain God? Nope. Do they comprehend God? No more than
they can comprehend the existence of the uncle they have yet to meet.
Do they REJECT or ADOPT theism? Neither. They can't handle it. In a
true sense they LACK sufficient knowledge to comprehend deity enough
to worship out of respect. Atheists CHOOSE to REJECT whatever
knowledge they gain about deity.

Jim

On Jul 22, 4:33 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Turner Hayes]

On 7/22/07, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitab...@gmail.com> wrote:

Shall I forward you an intriguing email from a deposed Nigerian prince? I think he would really appreciate your good Christian charity.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 5:28 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > So are you lacking signs of homosexuality?
>
> Unlike apparently yourself thinking along such lines, I am anti-homo
> the way an atheist is anti-deity.

The way which atheist is anti-deity? Where do you find atheists taking
digs at deists? (Jefferson, Paine and Voltaire are some famous deists
from the past).

> But understand there is no power or
> likelihood of an atheist rejecting homosexuality since rejection of it
> is mostly based on religion-based morality.

Stalin made homosexuality punishable by five years of hard labor. Was
his rejection of it based on religion? How about Mao's laws to
prosecute prostitution, homosexuality and pre-marital sex? Before
there was a Red China, when irreligion was rare, Shanghai was known as
the "whore of the Orient", substantially run by theist Brits and Yanks
whereas Mao's atheist commissars gave prostitutes new occupations,
usually hat making, and shut down booze and opium dens.

[omprem]

Swordsman:

"It came to a necessity to demonstrate the futility of finding an
atheist not turned over to a reprobate (unqualified) mind. They are
obviously unable to recognize their own ignorance, even unable to read
and comprehend established definitions. For them any definition
requires interpretation through atheist reading glasses. No wonder the
confusion. It's impossible to communicate with them."

Omprem:

Could not have said it better myself.

But those atheists do make good pets even if it is difficult to train
them not to make messes in the house. Their antics as a group are
hilarious, more fun than the monkey house at the zoo.

On Jul 22, 1:44 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It came to a necessity to demonstrate the futility of finding an
> atheist not turned over to a reprobate (unqualified) mind. They are
> obviously unable to recognize their own ignorance, even unable to read
> and comprehend established definitions. For them any definition
> requires interpretation through atheist reading glasses. No wonder the
> confusion. It's impossible to communicate with them.

>
> So now, like with Bill Clinton and having to define "is" for him, we
> must define "lack".
>

> http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/lack
> "1 : to be deficient or missing <time is lacking for a full
> explanation>

> 2 : to be short or have need of something <he will not lack for
> advisers>
> transitive verb : to stand in need of : suffer from the absence or
> deficiency of <lack the necessities of life>"
>
> (Jim- any way you look at that lack means not having enough. In the
> case of atheists the cause is not genetic, but refusal to fill the
> lack of belief. Their lack is a choice.)
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lack
> To lack something is to not have it.
>
> http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/l/l0008300.html
> "n.
> 1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a
> halt.

> 2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters,
> the reforms did not succeed.
> v. lacked, lack·ing, lacks
> v.tr.
> To be without or in need of: lacked the strength to lift the box.
> v.intr.
> 1. To be missing or deficient: We suspected that he was lying, but
> proof was lacking.

> 2. To be in need of something: She does not lack for friends."
>
> It goes on and on like those. Like the proper accepted definitions for
> "atheist", "lack" of belief simply means they don't have what it
> takes. In their case it is a deliberate choice to remain in lack. Like
> a "lack of decency". If one lacks decency, one is not decent.
>
> Instead of owning up to the fact they choose not to believe in God,
> something even devils believe in, they try to transfer their abject
> ignorance over to honest people using simple English and standard
> definitions. Anyone using typical meanings is considered ignorant by
> atheists. The fact is set now here, the trap sprung.
>

> Now we all know how foolish a person becomes by making such a stupid

> choice of lifestyle. Your mind will become seared over until decency

> is not attainable. Don't follow people like that. They will destroy
> you even to the point you can't rely on a dictionary because of
> paranoia ruling over you.
>
> I'll keep chipping at this problem. I'm a guy standing there with a
> sign "THEIR BRIDGE IS OUT" to perhaps save a few.
>

> Jim
>
> On Jul 21, 4:01 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

[omprem]

Swordsman:

"I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly
incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
amazing to watch."

Omprem:

This guy is good. And not just because everything he is saying about
atheists is what I have said about atheists.

When challenged or even when their beliefs are examined atheists hide
like cockroaches when the light is turned on.

On Jul 22, 5:16 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."
>
> Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough

> to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack. If you lack food you

> become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
> you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not

> desirable. If you LACK something you are not complete. If someone says

> "I lack patience", that is equivalent to "I am impatient". You can
> either tolerate delay or you cannot. If your fuse blows too soon you
> say "I am impatient within 5 minutes, but used to last an hour." In
> either case lack of patience means you are impatient. If you LACK
> belief in a God you are atheist.
>

> I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
> Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly
> incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
> amazing to watch.
>

[omprem]

Good point.

On Jul 22, 5:45 pm, SEARCHER <JAGO...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> You might be an atheist if you are in D'Nile. But what do I know.
>
> On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/you believe any of

> > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>

> > Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmltheysay
> > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> > deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> > teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
> > born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."
>

> > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is
> > no deity".
>

> > I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> > dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> > the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> > crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> > it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
> > necessary to look that up for you atheists too.
>

> > Jim

[MrCool]

On 23 Jul, 02:44, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "..beleif that there is no" = disbelief = absence of belief = lack of
> > belief they're all synonomous.
>
> I do know a moron. We don't call the boy a moron, but everyone knows
> he is.
> We just work around that and help him out. Teachers teach him how to
> look up numbers in the phone book every day. We hope he'll remember
> how at last someday. Your statement is moronic. Although there might
> be shared synonyms for all 4 scenarios, synonyms are not equal to
> definitions. :) Gotcha.

Their definitions are the same. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelieve.

1. "to have no belief in"

> > If you think these definitions mean something other than "lack of

> > belief" then explain each definition, seperately, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
> > as to what you think they mean. And, stop acting like a fuckin
> > crybaby.
>
> Oh, my, you inject such barbarism! NBy now you've possibly read my
> answers to other slightly more civil atheists.
>
> > P.S. what do you want "atheism" to mean? Go ahead and give us YOUR
> > definition--IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
>
> Against existence of deity. The "A" in the word "atheism" means one
> thing. AGAINST. A DISbelief. A REJECTION of a fact whether verifiable
> or not

No, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelieve. 1. "to have no
belief in"

> It's like "Abiotic. Something that kills life or prevents it.

Yes, and like plants that reproduce asexually are all against sex
aren't they?

> "The "theism" part limits the problem to deity. An atheist MUST then
> be against a belief in deity. If one doesn't reject the idea of
> existence of deity, then one is not an atheist, but something else.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelieve. 1. "to have no
belief in"

> If

[omprem]

It is so simply explained that even an atheist might get it.

On Jul 22, 6:07 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 21, 4:12 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/youbelieve any of

> > > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>

> > This definition seems to say that atheists lack a belief in the
> > supernatural (instead of "gods").
>
> Let me fix that for you. Deity is considered among the educated as

> "supernatural entity". That can be regarded as a being, or maybe a

> river of energy flowing over earth and making a circuit around the
> universe. Therefore, atheists don't believe in deity or the
> supernatural in general, but might believe in say a lightning bolt as
> something suitably natural enough to stand in awe of something besides
> themselves.
>

> > > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is no deity".
>

> > These definitions say that atheists lack a belief in god[s].
>
> A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve
> something is to choose not to believe. UNbelief is lack of sufficient
> belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person
> is not far from believing. Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe
> that regardless of any evidence." A disbeliever therefore must go on
> to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
> not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either. That defines
> UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist
> is an anti theist. A believer is a pro-theist. Now wasn't that simple
> enough?
>

> Jim

[omprem]

Cool. Excellent illustration.

I never thought of atheists as chemically impaired but perhaps they
are. I have been giving them the benefit of the doubt and considering
them lazy and fearful of sailing away from the sight of land, but you
may be right that they are impaired. They certainly talk very much
like the meth-head character in your post.

On Jul 22, 6:20 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> So far, Grasshopper, your master has referred to the holy discs once
> since coming here, to look up some stuff about the Roman Empire. I
> mostly write from what I've learned over a lifetime. About all you
> atheists can do is copy/paste your own posts and change the words
> around to maintain a very ignorant discussion. Notice I didn't say
> "debate". You lost that. It's back to a discussion, like between the
> Mayor and a homeless guy on meth in an alley. The Mayor says "You must
> stop cutting your body parts off here. This is a public building where
> good citizens come and go."
>
> "Hue it, Hez. Who am I? OK, you win. Jek. I said Jek. Huh? Anybody
> looking? Pull the shades! Where's my peep, Hez?"
>
> The Mayor represents fairly sane comment. The meth head represents an
> atheist mind turned reprobate. He stays stuck like that.
>

> On Jul 21, 5:54 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:

[omprem]

Swordsman:

"Here's the thing. Theist preaches the gospel to a crowd enjoying it.
Atheist walks by, is offended, and has theist arrested for violating
his right to hear only what he wants to hear."

Omprem:

Another winning observation.

On Jul 22, 6:45 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 21, 7:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmltheysay
> > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > > gods.
>

> > This is where atheism is defined. Belief in gods is absent from a
> > lamppost but it isn't atheist because it's incapable of being theist.
> > A newborn is capable of being theist; all that needs to happen is for
> > one or more gods to show up and strut their stuff upon which the
> > newborn would believe in them just as it believes in its mother.
>
> No mother or child expert would agree an infant could choose to
> believe in deity or comprehend deity. You have become mad. You
> probably believe the family dog could become an expert in nuclear
> physics. Ah, but I understand. We discriminate against them, not
> giving them a chance to strut their stuff.

>
> > > This absence of belief generally comes about either through
> > > deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
> > > teachings which seem literally incredible.
>

> > One starts out not believing and if one is unable to believe the
> > incredible, one continues not believing or in Anthony Flew's words,
> > one remains "innocent" of belief:
>
> One starts out not knowing anything except what to do when lips reach
> a warm nipple.
>
> > "My presumption of atheism is closely analogous to the presumption of
> > innocence in the English law. The onus of proof...is up to the theist:
> > first, to introduce and defend his proposed concept of God; and,
> > second, to provide sufficient reason for believing that this concept
> > of his does in fact have an application.
> > Antony Flew in God, Freedom, and Immortality.
>
> Therefore, according to that statement no prosecuting attorney will
> present evidence against the theist before the theist makes his case.
> No accusation, no trial, no condemnation, UNTIL the theist is
> DISPROVED. He is then put on trial and accused then tried and
> condemned or turned loose. You see, the defendant is never required to
> PROVE INNOCENCE. He must be considered as though ACQUITTED until
> proved guilty while being treated as innocent. Fine analogy there
> (?). Hey, just one more example of a reprobate mind there. Flew's
> mind has flown.
>
> Here's the thing. Theist preaches the gospel to a crowd enjoying it.
> Atheist walks by, is offended, and has theist arrested for violating
> his right to hear only what he wants to hear. At the trial, will the
> theist be tried for his message, or for saying words the atheist just
> didn't want to hear? Now if the atheist was captured and kept in a
> cell, forced to hear the Bible read through every 90 hours for 3
> months, that atheist might have something credible to seek justice
> over. Even then, would the trial be over the message, or the way it
> was delivered? Take it a bit further. Which would be a crime?
> Preaching in public, or brainwashing a captive against his will? So
> which of you atheists has a case? If the message, why listen? If
> public speech, why be an American living under present Constitution?

>
> > > It is not a lack of belief
> > > born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings."

> > > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."
> > > or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is
> > > no deity"
>

> > That would be a denier. Carefully note that the previous definition
> > includes also disbelievers.
>
> Hee Yah! We got ya going now! Denier is one who could know but says
> not. A liar. Or, rejects an accusation. "You are a cheater." "No, I
> am not a cheater." That's a denial whether the one denying is a
> cheater or not. So, do you like that one as applied to atheists? If
> so, that makes atheists liars, and they are immoral. To disbelieve is
> to choose not to believe something. "I believe in God." "Sorry, but I
> do not believe in God." The second person is a disbeliever talking to
> a believer. What's so hard to understand about that?

>
> > > I wasted a good 30 minutes checking out online encyclopedias and
> > > dictionaries, atheist websites, only to find the whole world agrees on
> > > the above. NONE I could find agree with the paltry, wimp wristed,
> > > crawfishing, panty-waisted lace fringed, puky definition proposed here
> > > it is a "LACK" of belief in God or theism. What is THEISM? Is it
> > > necessary to look that up for you atheists too.
>

> > Most certainly! Without explaining what theism is, how would the
> > typical baby know what it is? Come to think of it, it might be
> > necessary to define it for you too. Here's an exercise. Consider two
> > persons A & B.
> > A lacks belief in one set of gods*. B lacks belief in another set of
> > gods*.
> > * many of which gods he has never heard of
> > How would you determine whether either A or B is a theist?
>
> If ONE of many sets are rejected, that leaves plenty of room for
> thinking that one believes in another set of gods. That one is a
> theist until he rejects all sets of gods. Then he becomes an atheist.
>
> IF this place was titled Atheism vs. Theism I wouldn't have been
> interested in coming here. Instead we have a group not believing in
> any deity vs a group believing in a specific God and God-way.
>
> Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 5:38 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 Jul, 23:16, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> > read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."
>

> Except you have been shown completely wrong. Your definitions state
> that atheism is a lack of a belief.

You atheists are trying to make "lack" of belief to mean you are
somewhere between 100-0% against the idea of deity existing. Atheism
is more definite than that. It is 100% disbelief. Stating that atheism
is a "lack" of belief in deity is the definition atheists here want,
but that one LACKS the truth of what atheism is about. Lack can easily
be taken as just not quite having enough to be satisfactory. Atheism
INCLUDES lack in that sense, but gores way deeper into REJECTION
whether one had enough information or not. .If you believe you just
can't be sure due to lack of information then you have not rejected
the concept of deity existing.

> > Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough
> > to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack. If you lack food you
> > become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
> > you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not
> > desirable.
>

> Oh dear. What about lacking a desire to kill? What about lacking
> stupidity? What about lacking the ability to rape children? By your
> reasoning, those aren't desireable positions to be in. This had got
> to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

The word "lack" isn't intended in English to be used to state a lack
of a negative. Instead we state our positive attitude, like "I would
not kill someone." You either would or would not. Coming short of
murder is not considered a lack of anything. That's having all you
need not to be a murderer. If you told me you have a lack of desire to
kill me, I'd have to assume you are a little short of doing that crime
and might finish getting whatever desire you need to do a murder on
me. I couldn't take it any less than that. To say atheists merely lack
in belief is ludicrous. How about a theist saying they lack in
atheism? Huh. Interesting. Maybe you atheists define Christians as
people lacking in belief there is no possibility of a Jesus Christ.

> > If you LACK something you are not complete. If someone says
> > "I lack patience", that is equivalent to "I am impatient". You can
> > either tolerate delay or you cannot.
>

> That's right, and I lack a belief in God, you either believe He exists
> or you don't believe He exists.

So in what way might a Christian lack? Belief in atheism? Give your
answer some thought.

> > If your fuse blows too soon you
> > say "I am impatient within 5 minutes, but used to last an hour." In
> > either case lack of patience means you are impatient. If you LACK
> > belief in a God you are atheist.
>

> Yay! you finally understand that atheism is a lack of a belief. Now
> you just have to get your head around the word "lack".

I did. Lacking is only part of the atheist problem. Someone wrote that
infants lack belief in God so are atheists. That was a ridiculous
understanding of lacking. They lack all knowledge about any concept
other than sucking a nipple. An infant that can't control its bowels
can't be expected to choose a belief system or "be" an atheist. An
atheist chooses to remain lacking in belief, disbelieving by conscious
choice, rejecting information suggesting existence of deity.

> > I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> > atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
> > Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly
> > incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
> > amazing to watch.
>

> erm...what are you on about. Why are you talking about blaspheming?
> Now's who's become increasingly incoherent?

I just came to a conclusion, a little message for onlookers having
enough sense to stay out of this absurd discussion. Some of them have
probably finally decided they don't want to be an atheist, and are the
ones I hope will watch your antics.

Jim

> > On Jul 22, 3:31 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> Why did you snip my entire post and address virtually none of it. I
> take you see now that all of your own sources (except atheists.org)
> show that atheism is a lack of a belief in God.

Somewhere today I hit SEND before even beginning a reply. It must have
been your post. But, I did go back to it with a response. I'm only
skipping the most moronic posts.

Jim

[omprem]

Observer:
.
"We lack faith in the hideous sadistic mythological monster you
worship.
We lack the inherent hatred to preach dehumanizing filth to our
neighbors .
We lack the unreasonable fear of death leading to these stupid ideas.
We lack the sadomasochistic drive to support your psychotic
superstition.

Most of all we lack the need for a god thing. "

Omprem:

So, you do have an Atheist Creed after all.

[Simpleton]

On Jul 22, 6:55 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 22, 5:38 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Jul, 23:16, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> > > read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."
>
> > Except you have been shown completely wrong. Your definitions state
> > that atheism is a lack of a belief.
>
> You atheists are trying to make "lack" of belief to mean you are
> somewhere between 100-0% against the idea of deity existing. Atheism
> is more definite than that. It is 100% disbelief.

Among other things, you lack ovaries to be a child-bearing woman. I
guess you're now hard-pressed to accept that simple truth.

Take the class, Jimmy.

[Word_Swordsman]

I realize you are not capable of reading my responses and recognizing
you are defeated. You remind me of how to kill a wolf without touching
it, with only a knife, in a hard winter when a wolf's competition is
too dangerous for survival. Dip the knife blade in blood and stick
the handle in a hole in snow. It will freeze to the ground, so will
the blood to the blade. Let the wolf find it. He will lick the blood
off, slicing his tongue beyond healing, the blood flowing copiously as
the tongue bleeds more and more. The wolf bleeds to death swallowing
his own blood, not stopping the feeding until it is all bled out. You
then eat the wolf.

Jim

On Jul 22, 5:48 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:12 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > I'm not interested in sanitized definitions among atheists that are
> > beginning to question why they are in such a mess.
>

> Of course not. If you were interested you might actually learn
> something. Instead you just continue to keep your mind tightly closed
> and make a fool of yourself. Your sword is getting dull from disuse.

[omprem]

Ranjit:

"Where do you find atheists taking digs at deists?"

Omprem:

Right here on this board every day and in every discussion topic.

On Jul 22, 9:40 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

[Word_Swordsman]

I've already cited the dictionaries which you atheists argue with.
I've been using "common sense", reason, and keen logic since then. Ah,
but you didn't notice? Why are you so dull? Reprobate mind? Your
atheism is getting to you like I predicted it would.

Jim

On Jul 22, 5:51 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Don't abandon your dictionaries now, you started this.

>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelieve. 1. "to have no
> belief in"
>

> There's nothing about evidence or choice. Unbelief also fits,
> although your definition is ridiculously circular. There can be more
> than one word for something you know.

>
> > A disbeliever therefore must go on
> > to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> > person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
> > not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either.
>

> not a believer = have no belief = disbeliever. easy.

>
> > That defines
> > UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> > No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist
> > is an anti theist. A believer is a pro-theist. Now wasn't that simple
> > enough?
>

> Why abandon your dictionaries now? Because you know they're not
> agreeing with you?
>
> > Jim

[MrCool]

On 23 Jul, 03:47, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Swordsman:
>
> "I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
> Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly
> incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
> amazing to watch."
>
> Omprem:
>
> This guy is good.

This guy is saying that atheism is bad because it is a lack of a
belief, and lack is bad word. Just like it's bad to lack AIDS. Do
you not have what it takes to get AIDS? No? Your obviously not trying
hard enough then.

> And not just because everything he is saying about
> atheists is what I have said about atheists.
>
> When challenged or even when their beliefs are examined atheists hide
> like cockroaches when the light is turned on.
>
> On Jul 22, 5:16 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> > read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."
>
> > Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough
> > to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack. If you lack food you
> > become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
> > you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not
> > desirable. If you LACK something you are not complete. If someone says
> > "I lack patience", that is equivalent to "I am impatient". You can
> > either tolerate delay or you cannot. If your fuse blows too soon you
> > say "I am impatient within 5 minutes, but used to last an hour." In
> > either case lack of patience means you are impatient. If you LACK
> > belief in a God you are atheist.
>
> > I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> > atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet? There's hope for you.
> > Watch the lives of the blasphemers here. They will become increasingly
> > incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
> > amazing to watch.
>
> > Jim
>

> > On Jul 22, 3:31 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Auntie Bubbles]

On Jul 22, 6:32 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

We reject BULLSHIT that we are fed about diety. It is not knowledge.

[Auntie Bubbles]

On Jul 22, 7:04 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > > Jim-

And does your "lack" of belief in all other gods but the one you think
exists mean that you are deficient in some way?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 3:07 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve

> something is to choose not to believe.

Dawkins said "I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing
disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer ..". Does Dawkins
mean that at some age, McGrath chose not to believe in fairies,
astrology and Thor's hammer? In "Return to Neverland", when this
reviewer says Jane declares her disbelief in fairies, does he mean she
chose not to believe in fairies?
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1241210

> UNbelief is lack of sufficient
> belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person
> is not far from believing.

In 1 Corinthians 10:27, does "If one of the unbelievers invites you"
mean "if one not far from believing invites you"?

> Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe

> that regardless of any evidence." A disbeliever therefore must go on

> to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is

> not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either. That defines

> UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist
> is an anti theist.

No; Jain believers are, for the most part, atheist and pro-theist
(more precisely, they are pro-non-Jain-theists of sramana faiths).

> A believer is a pro-theist.

Is a believer in Teravada Buddhism a pro-theist?

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 7:02 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Ranjit:
> "Where do you find atheists taking digs at deists?"
> Omprem:

> Right here on this board every day and in every discussion topic.

Some have taken digs at others who appear soft on Christianity. What
digs have they taken at Jefferson, Paine or Voltaire?

[scooter]

On Jul 22, 7:44 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "..beleif that there is no" = disbelief = absence of belief = lack of
> > belief they're all synonomous.
>
> I do know a moron. We don't call the boy a moron, but everyone knows
> he is.
> We just work around that and help him out. Teachers teach him how to
> look up numbers in the phone book every day. We hope he'll remember
> how at last someday. Your statement is moronic. Although there might
> be shared synonyms for all 4 scenarios, synonyms are not equal to
> definitions. :) Gotcha.

Gotcha? What are you, in third grade? Dumbfuck, there is a difference
between synonyms and the word synonomous--look it up. Furthermore, you
will find that many definitions are not "equal" depending on the
source. That's why you can find several definitions of the word
atheist and a bevy of other differentiations on other words. Also, as
a side note, you fuckin Christians can't decide or agree on what most
of that shit you call a Bible means. Yet, you have the nuts to come
here and tell atheists what it is to be an atheist. AT least most
atheists can agree with similar definitions. You fuckin Christians are
constantly crying about who is a "true" Chrstian and who is not.

>
> > If you think these definitions mean something other than "lack of
> > belief" then explain each definition, seperately, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
> > as to what you think they mean. And, stop acting like a fuckin
> > crybaby.
>
> Oh, my, you inject such barbarism! NBy now you've possibly read my
> answers to other slightly more civil atheists.

Nope. I havn't and I don't plan to read them. Sometimes barbarism is
warranted given your natural tendency to condescend--dumbass.

>
> > P.S. what do you want "atheism" to mean? Go ahead and give us YOUR
> > definition--IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
>
> Against existence of deity. The "A" in the word "atheism" means one
> thing. AGAINST. A DISbelief. A REJECTION of a fact whether verifiable

> or not. It's like "Abiotic. Something that kills life or prevents it.

> "The "theism" part limits the problem to deity. An atheist MUST then
> be against a belief in deity. If one doesn't reject the idea of

> existence of deity, then one is not an atheist, but something else. If

> you might not be an atheist, and are not a Christian, then why are you
> HERE?

Its greek---dumbfuck. And its derived from the word atheos. Theos,
which means belief in god[s] OR deity and "a-" which means "without".
It doesn't mean "against." as you claim--dumbass. "A" is not a
rejection, nor does it indicate a rejection, of anything. It literally
means "without". So, a-theist really means without a belief in god[s].

By the way, there is no such thing as an unverifyable fact. A fact is
a fact BECAUSE it has been verified. Everything else is assumption,
conjecture or assertion. Perhaps you should hook up with your retarded
friend for some instruction.

>
> Jim

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 4:27 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 21, 11:26 pm, Dave <dvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 1:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > According to.....
>
> > I do not care who they are or what they claim to be. They do not
> > represent all of Atheism nor to they speak for all Atheists.
>
> > I doubt you are intelligent enough to understand that though. You will
> > continue with your army of inane strawmen no matter what.
>
> The atheists on this group have become so disoriented they can't
> settle on a definition in any dictionary? None of the online atheist
> associations define your disbelief in deity?

If so, then those atheists who form associations are a certain kind of
atheist.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 2:43 pm, SEARCHER <JAGO...@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Believing means believing. But what do I know?

That seeing means believing?

> Shalom.

[Turner Hayes]

I wonder if his magic CDs can teach him Greek, too.

If so, I'd ask for my money back if I were him.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 4:25 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Then answer my question. Don't forget. WHICH supernatural things DO
> atheists believe in?

The Buddha believed in rebirth. Mahavira believed in jivas. One is
tempted to translate it to "soul" but that doesn't convey the whole
meaning unless you can comprehend a notion of cabbages having souls.

They might have considered these natural, though, and denied that they
were supernatural. Unless you agree with them, you might consider them
atheists who believed in supernatural things.

> > Some Christians can handle everything of the Bible
> except perhaps speaking in tongues.

... and handling snakes, drinking poisons and driving away demons?

> They lack a belief in the need or
> continued existence of that spiritual gift. We call that group
> "unbeliever".

Jesus calls the group that can move mountains, handle snakes and drink
poisons believers. So, what might he call those who can't do these?
Any guesses?

[Keith MacNevins]

The idol mind is the devil's workshop.

On 7/22/07, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitab...@gmail.com> wrote:

Being a heathen is often far better than atheist. God ignores atheists
until they get in the way. He calls them fools. Of course atheists are
heathens. Heathens are outside the family of God, as are atheists. The
heathen are often believers in false gods. Some don't care about it,
worshipping their belly. So whatever level of theism they accept keeps
them heathens until they believe in the right God. But atheists don't
believe in god(s), so will not believe in the right god, rejecting all
gods.  They deny the existence of deity so won't shop around for a
"right god" to worship. Two different animals there, but with
something in common.

Jim

On Jul 22, 12:56 am, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I'd say many of the atheists on this site qualify as heathens even if they
> don't precisely fit your definition.

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 6:31 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 5:07 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 4:12 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> > > On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/youbelieveany of

> > > > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > > > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > > > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > > > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > > > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > > > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > > > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>
> > > This definition seems to say that atheists lack a belief in the
> > > supernatural (instead of "gods").
>
> > Let me fix that for you. Deity is considered among the educated as
> > "supernatural entity".

It is clearly common knowledge the whole idea behind the word
"atheist" has to do with rejecting existence of deity (gods, powers
apart from natural forces, etc). The statement above clearly used
examples of the supernatural. Deity is always regarded as
supernatural. Deity MUST be supernatural, or is just another aspect of
the natural world, nothing special. They used the word
"entities"outside the natural realm. That defines deity.

> Let me fix that for you: No where in any of this passage do they use
> the word "deity". Amoung the educated, we don't randomly insert words
> into passages for expediancy. It compromises academic integrity. While
> the word "deity" may be implied in something atheists reject, it's
> really a particular that may be included in a category of
> "supernatural". So, your point is moot.

So you don't think the word "deity" would fit perfectly in that
definition? I suppose also you assert therefore that atheist
organization didn't intend to include deity, leaving open the
possibility they believe in existence of gods?
HAR HAR HAR. You are funny.

> > That can be regarded as a being, or maybe a
> > river of energy flowing over earth and making a circuit around the
> > universe. Therefore, atheists don't believe in deity or the
> > supernatural in general, but might believe in say a lightning bolt as
> > something suitably natural enough to stand in awe of something besides
> > themselves.
>

> Nothing can "be regarded" as "supernatural". There are no examples of
> "supernatural nor any evidence to even support such an absurd
> conjecture.

Wrong. When something is found to be outside the bounds of 'natural'
is is automatically 'supernatural'. It remains considered supernatural
until proved to be natural. Infection was once thought to be something
like demon issue until germs were discovered.

> I fail to see the point of you reiterating that atheists do not
> believe in the "supernatural". Do you have one? Or, is it just a bunch
> of word salad?

You've already lost the post thread. Go back to the beginning to catch
up.

> > > > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html

> > > > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is no deity".
>

> > > These definitions say that atheists lack a belief in god[s].

>
> > A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve

> > something is to choose not to believe. UNbelief is lack of sufficient

> > belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person

> > is not far from believing. Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe

> > that regardless of any evidence." A disbeliever therefore must go on
> > to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> > person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
> > not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either. That defines
> > UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> > No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist

> > is an anti theist. A believer is a pro-theist. Now wasn't that simple
> > enough?
>

> You're right. You don't seem to understand. Whether you disbelieve or
> are a nonbeliever/unbeliever, you employ a lack of belief. You can
> split hairs all you want, your point is moot. Now, wasn't that simple?
> And, I would say an agnostic is "somewhere between a theist and a non-
> theist."

Atheist here tried to limit the definition of atheist to one who LACKS
in belief of deity. The whole point is "lack" is not the correct
choice as an all in one descriptive word. Yes, atheists lack, but they
lack 100% to disbelieve, rejecting a knowledge. Another example of
improper use of "lack" is a felon saying "I lack being a good
citizen." when the truth is better said "I am a felon and can't be
considered a good citizen." We know from that it isn't a matter of the
person just doing a better job of being a good citizen. he is branded,
prevented from being considered a good citizen. An atheist has made a
commitment like the felon made to a crime. Like the felon is a
criminal, the atheist is not only lacking something, but discards a
knowledge to the denying of it. Leaving it as lacking in a belief is
dishonest. That's sanitizing a belief system that is generally
disrespected in America. Your disbelief is not a deficiency such as
being born with or acquired by lack of vitamins. No sane person would
choose to eliminate some vital vitamins. The lack would of course be
one beyond choice. But when someone chooses not to eat fruit because
they don't believe vitamin C is good for them, they disbelieve, choose
not to believe a knowledge of health. Ultimately that choice will kill
them.

> Another thing: Go ahead and define atheist however you want. It won't
> change a thing. People who disbelieve are rejecting the assertion of a
> god[s] and, in practice, those who are non-believers have done the
> same thing. In both cases, they lack belief.

I have defined atheist in a way acceptable to English teachers,
conforming to the most widely used dictionaries and encyclopedias
known to the world. I couldn't paste most of those and leave all that
for you folks to just look up. By now everyone understands what an
atheist is and you are stuck with it.

> Finally, you theists have a mental condition of seeing all things in
> black and white. You think in absolutes. Of course, it shouldn't be a
> surprise. After all, you pray to invisable stuff, too.

I suppose you avoid invisible stuff like air, the electricity in your
home and car wires, etc. I, however, am familiar with how invisible
things can be quite helpful.

Jim

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 3:45 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Jul 21, 7:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmltheysay
> > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > > gods.
>
> > This is where atheism is defined. Belief in gods is absent from a
> > lamppost but it isn't atheist because it's incapable of being theist.
> > A newborn is capable of being theist; all that needs to happen is for
> > one or more gods to show up and strut their stuff upon which the
> > newborn would believe in them just as it believes in its mother.
>
> No mother or child expert would agree an infant could choose to
> believe in deity or comprehend deity. You have become mad. You
> probably believe the family dog could become an expert in nuclear
> physics. Ah, but I understand. We discriminate against them, not
> giving them a chance to strut their stuff.

If you believe in atom bombs, that doesn't mean you're a nuclear
physicist. If Vishnu walks upside down on the ceiling, my dog would
get the idea that he's not a mere man. The same goes if Jesus runs (on
water) after my dog while it's swimming after a duck in a lake,
radiating light like an arc lamp. A wildcat would believe if Jesus
resurrects a half-eaten rat, and would jump out of its skin the next
time Jesus shows up while it is eating a ratl

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."
>
> Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough
> to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack. If you lack food you
> become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
> you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not
> desirable. If you LACK something you are not complete.

You lack belief in jinns (genies). You are incomplete. You will
starve. Start believing in jinns for your own sake!

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jul 22, 7:52 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idol mind is the devil's workshop.

An intriguing thought, that! Can it be the devil that inspires theists
to dream up gods?

[Keith MacNevins]

My God is spirit, and not an inanimate object or a mere image. It is atheists who tend to worship cock 'n bull.

--
Ambassador From Hell

[MrCool]

So lacking the ability to kill a child is a nonsensical statement? Am
I not allowed to say that because you say it "isn't intended" that
way. The fact is, the sentence makes sense, and nowhere does it say
that having the ability to kill children is a good thing. If someone
said this sentence, would you tell them they need to try harder or
that killing children must be a good then? I'm sure you mentioned
common sense somewhere.

Yes or no, do you lack a belief in Zeus?

Use the "absense" if this upsets you that much, or is that a bad word
too? This is an argument about semantics nothing more, we think the
most suitable label for us is "atheist", you obviously don't. So
what? Is that your grand point, that we have mislabelled ourselves?
Ok, you have permission to call me a non-theist, and when I say the
word atheist, just hear the word non-theist.

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 6:59 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > OK, so maybe you make up a new category forcing the group title to
> > read "Atheism & Lackers vs Christianity."
>

> > Atheists have to do with Atheism! All lack something important enough
> > to identify a significant lack. Lack is lack.
>

> Observer
> .
> We lack faith in the hideous sadistic mythological monster you
> worship.

No you don't. No such entity exists. You frame such a being in your
own perverted mind. You REJECT the God of the Bible because He is not
a Care Bear to cuddle you to sleep tonight. You HATE that holy,
righteous, just God information because He won't allow you to do
whatever you want. You have NO faith in God. You don't believe in God
at all, so faith in God is not at all a possibility in you.

> We lack the inherent hatred to preach dehumanizing filth to our
> neighbors .

No you don't. Atheists are KNOWN for their dehumanizing filth that
would destroy any society if left to itself to infest minds. Your
message is death.

> We lack the unreasonable fear of death leading to these stupid ideas.

What fear? Did something jump out at you when you were little? I
remember the first time I heard the gospel preached. I heard about a
man I'd loved to have met face to face 2000 years ago. I so
appreciated what he did for men then that I decided to check him out
fully, and so got to know him. Do you fear earthworms? There is a lot
of irrational fear going around alright. Especially in the lives of
atheists.

> We lack the sadomasochistic drive to support your psychotic
> superstition.

Put your Barbie doll away. It's distracting you. Leave her clothes on
next time. And stop pulling her arms and legs off. Eventually they
will not stay put.

> Most of all we lack the need for a god thing.

Beg pardon. You NEED God, but are cut off from knowing him now. Too
bad.

> If you lack food you
>
> > become malnourished and eventually starve. If you stop lacking food
> > you can be healthy and live. So obviously lack means something not
> > desirable.
>

> Observer
> I guess that as a dumb ass Christian you would say that a lack of
> cancer is a bad thing .

Hmmm. You would then say "I don't have enough cancer." I would say "I
don't have cancer!" So few people would talk the way you write. I bet
you get some funny looks. "I lack a job" should mean you are not
employed. But to you that must mean you don't have enough hours of
work to earn a paycheck. You prefer not to admit you are jobless, so
you "lack". Very dishonest, deceiving, a lie.

> If you LACK something you are not complete. If someone says
>
> > "I lack patience", that is equivalent to "I am impatient". You can

> > either tolerate delay or you cannot. If your fuse blows too soon you

> > say "I am impatient within 5 minutes, but used to last an hour." In
> > either case lack of patience means you are impatient. If you LACK
> > belief in a God you are atheist.
>

> Observer
> It is a good thing that you worked for the government for a living ,
> you would have sure fucked up the business world or the scientific
> community. How did you get so stupid ?

You don't know who I worked for or how long for any one employer. I
admit I was a wildlife habitat management forester that made sure
wetlands in my area were identified, mitigated, analyzed, improved/
restored, stocked with a variety of native plants and animals, put
under management with funding, protected, and sometimes created. I did
that for 20 years without having to be an evolutionist. No scientist
or professional ever had to compromise their religious faith to
accomplish some remarkable achievements in the wetlands. So what did
you do to qualify as my judge? Shovel manure?

> > I think some are back peddling to try going underground, closet
> > atheists. Progress! Haven't blasphemed yet?
>

> Observer
> Oh by the way blasphemy is a victimless crime.

Wrong. The blasphemer destroys himself. You are the victim of being
used by Satan. .

> There's hope for you.
>
> > Watch the lives of the blasphemers here.
>

> Observer
> Fuck the holey ghost and fuck your three headed god thing.
> Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
>

> > They will become increasingly
> > incoherent as the desperation grows to a fast rolling boil. It's
> > amazing to watch.

Yep, increasingly incoherent, a total reprobate, nobody you want to be
around.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 8:04 pm, Auntie Bubbles <mary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I lack ignorance and depravity and hatred and anger. Does this mean I
> need more of these things?

When you lack something it means you don't have enough of it.
Therefore, I suppose you say it like
"I don't have enough poverty. Here, take my week's pay so I can lack
prosperity."
"I'm not depraved enough since I lack depravity." Why not say "I am
(or am not) depraved."
"I don't hate enough. There just isn't enough hatred in me today."
"I lack anger. Obviously I need more anger. Make me angrier."
"I wish I was more ignorant. I lack that. Maybe a lobotomy would
help."

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 8:25 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:

> You *are* falling apart, when you start responding to your material.

Due to a LACK of challenging statements from atheists here I have to
resort to expanding my own statements more and more to keep the
discussion a discussion, not a mere cussing from atheists.

> > > So are you lacking signs of homosexuality?
>
> > Unlike apparently yourself thinking along such lines, I am anti-homo
> > the way an atheist is anti-deity.
>

> Which does not explain why you will not confirm if you are lacking
> signs of homosexuality.

That's easy for normal people to understand. I chose deliberately not
to pay attention to what the perverts do among themselves. Because of
that wise choice long ago when first finding out some do those things
actually happen, I have been free of the signs of homosexuality. That
means 100% heterosexual. If I said I lacked in signs it would mean I
need more of them. If you came up to tell me you lack signs of
homosexuality, I'd have to assume you regret not having sufficient
signs to be identified as one by the casual observer. All you need to
tell people is you are trying to be a fully committed homosexual, but
have a ways to go yet. That states your predicament much better.

> > But understand there is no power or
> > likelihood of an atheist rejecting homosexuality since rejection of it
> > is mostly based on religion-based morality.
>

> Oh, so *you* being the religious type and all have to fight it off
> each morning. Do you fight it before or after your prayers, Jimmy?

It isn't necessary to daily fight something that is dead to you.

Skipping over the nonsense.

Jim

[Simpleton]

On Jul 22, 9:11 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 22, 8:04 pm, Auntie Bubbles <mary...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I lack ignorance and depravity and hatred and anger. Does this mean I
> > need more of these things?
>
> When you lack something it means you don't have enough of it.

...or, in many cases, even any of it.

For example, atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).

But you better write to the good folks at biblegateway.com. Either
they have mistranslated portions in The Good Book, or they do not
agree with you.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=3&verse=3&version=31&context=verse

Romans 3:3
"What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify
God's faithfulness?"

See if they'll buy the 10 CDs, Jimmy. Or if they'll trade them for an
English class for you.

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 8:40 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 5:28 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>

> > > So are you lacking signs of homosexuality?
>
> > Unlike apparently yourself thinking along such lines, I am anti-homo
> > the way an atheist is anti-deity.
>

> The way which atheist is anti-deity? Where do you find atheists taking
> digs at deists? (Jefferson, Paine and Voltaire are some famous deists
> from the past).

Wow, more blatant ignorance coming through! Awesome. I appreciate your
representation of atheists.
You need to learn to use a dictionary. From http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deity

Deity: 1 a : the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY b
capitalized : GOD 1, : SUPREME BEING
2 : a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3 : one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Deist: One who believes a movement or system of thought advocating
natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century
denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the
universe.

I have not mentioned deism here until now. Once again you run true to
form with a reprobate mind. While at it, Deists don't deny the
existence of God. They say God doesn't mess with physical laws,
therefore doesn't perform miracles. The Jefferson Bible left out the
miracles.

> > But understand there is no power or
> > likelihood of an atheist rejecting homosexuality since rejection of it
> > is mostly based on religion-based morality.
>

> Stalin made homosexuality punishable by five years of hard labor. Was
> his rejection of it based on religion? How about Mao's laws to
> prosecute prostitution, homosexuality and pre-marital sex? Before
> there was a Red China, when irreligion was rare, Shanghai was known as
> the "whore of the Orient", substantially run by theist Brits and Yanks
> whereas Mao's atheist commissars gave prostitutes new occupations,
> usually hat making, and shut down booze and opium dens.

You seem to be the expert on homosexuality and such sins, so tell me
about your area of interest. When did those urges begin to be noticed
in you? Did someone tell you what they were seeing in you, or did you
detect them yourself? There are more probing questions that if
answered honestly might help you recover.

Jim

[Simpleton]

On Jul 22, 9:26 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 22, 8:25 pm, Simpleton <hu...@whoever.com> wrote:
>
> > You *are* falling apart, when you start responding to your material.
>
> Due to a LACK of challenging statements from atheists here I have to
> resort to expanding my own statements more and more to keep the
> discussion a discussion, not a mere cussing from atheists.
>
> > > > So are you lacking signs of homosexuality?
>
> > > Unlike apparently yourself thinking along such lines, I am anti-homo
> > > the way an atheist is anti-deity.
>
> > Which does not explain why you will not confirm if you are lacking
> > signs of homosexuality.
>
> That's easy for normal people to understand. I chose deliberately not
> to pay attention to what the perverts do among themselves. Because of
> that wise choice long ago when first finding out some do those things
> actually happen,

Thanks for confirming that you weighed the alternative, and "wisely"
*chose* to be whatever you claim to be.

> I have been free of the signs of homosexuality. That
> means 100% heterosexual.

Yeah, but only since the time you made the choice. When you were a
kid, Jimmy, and had not properly been subjected to the "philosophy of
theism", it must have been difficult for you, right?

> If I said I lacked in signs it would mean I
> need more of them. If you came up to tell me you lack signs of
> homosexuality, I'd have to assume you regret not having sufficient
> signs to be identified as one by the casual observer.

That's all you can do though. Assume.

> All you need to
> tell people is you are trying to be a fully committed homosexual, but
> have a ways to go yet. That states your predicament much better.
>

...or I can simply say that I am a heterosexual, and if unfortumate to
be in the company of sword-wordsmiths, I can add that I never had to
make a choice like you had to.

> > > But understand there is no power or
> > > likelihood of an atheist rejecting homosexuality since rejection of it
> > > is mostly based on religion-based morality.
>
> > Oh, so *you* being the religious type and all have to fight it off
> > each morning. Do you fight it before or after your prayers, Jimmy?
>
> It isn't necessary to daily fight something that is dead to you.
>

Oops, you just admitted that your religion-based morality, when it
comes to homosexuality, is dead.

> Skipping over the nonsense.
>

You mean your choice of homosexuality over heterosexuality was
meaningful?

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 8:42 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> Swordsman:
>
> "It came to a necessity to demonstrate the futility of finding an
> atheist not turned over to a reprobate (unqualified) mind. They are
> obviously unable to recognize their own ignorance, even unable to read
> and comprehend established definitions. For them any definition
> requires interpretation through atheist reading glasses. No wonder the
> confusion. It's impossible to communicate with them."
>
> Omprem:
>
> Could not have said it better myself.
>
> But those atheists do make good pets even if it is difficult to train
> them not to make messes in the house. Their antics as a group are
> hilarious, more fun than the monkey house at the zoo.

This has been very entertaining for me and friends come to watch the
show.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 8:49 pm, MrCool <tarj_saho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelieve. 1. "to have no
> belief in"

You stopped short of completing the definitions there. It's
copyrighted (no pasting I suppose), but I read them and will now type
from memory. To finish your attempt, it's 1. to have no belief in;
refusing to believe in and or rejecting a belief such as not believing
in UFOs. Now since we're talking about atheism, and you've already
surely learned that previous lesson about the makeup of Atheism, anti-
the-ism is refusing to believe any cause, effect, doctrine or theory
in the existence of god(s).

Why did you try yet again to deceive the world? Are you so ashamed of
your belief system you must lie by omission of pertinent fact?

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:09 pm, Auntie Bubbles <mary...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> We reject BULLSHIT that we are fed about diety. It is not knowledge.

I agree, bullshit of itself is not knowledge. It is matter. Knowledge
begins by naming the matter bullshit. From there we describe our
observations of it. Odor. Color. Consistency. Size of pie. You know. I
realize you don't like the stuff, but in order to identify it you must
know something about it.

Now, how you derive bullshit from deity is a mystery. I've never had
the stuff fall out of my Bible. I've never seen it spew out of a
preacher's mouth. Where did you get bullshit from that topic?

You are very strange people. Maybe you just thought some mildew
falling from your dusty old Bible was bullshit. Why would you conclude
something that silly? Do you have a bull living with you?

Jim

[Turner Hayes]

This group is starting to depress me. We have a serious dearth of good theists around here. It's pretty much OldMan, Delusional? and...well, that's about it. In the old days, you had your Michael Ewarts, your PDs (on the whole a fairly reasonable theist), probably come others I can't recall. Now all we have this crap, your SEARCHERs, your sword swallower here, your omprem, your zacubi. AvC, I weep for you.

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:18 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:07 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve
> > something is to choose not to believe.
>
> Dawkins said "I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing
> disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer ..". Does Dawkins
> mean that at some age, McGrath chose not to believe in fairies,
> astrology and Thor's hammer? In "Return to Neverland", when this
> reviewer says Jane declares her disbelief in fairies, does he mean she
> chose not to believe in fairies?http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1241210

I find it disappointing the best you can come up with now is a Disney
film and topics about concepts that don't even have air for substance
to make your case. I have news for you. Peter Pan is not a real
person. The story is a true myth. Sorry to leave you hanging like
that. Do you have family nearby? Get a life.

> > UNbelief is lack of sufficient
> > belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person
> > is not far from believing.
>
> In 1 Corinthians 10:27, does "If one of the unbelievers invites you"
> mean "if one not far from believing invites you"?

No. One can be an unbeliever all through their adult life without a
shred of progress forward. In the Bible Jesus reprimanded the apostles
for their unbelief. They caught on and repented of their unbeliefs.
Christians are there instructed to eat with unbelievers regardless of
any progress they are making towards coming out of unbelief. We would
be expected to eat whatever they find suitable to eat, without
reservations. We can't eat with mockers and hypocrites, people saying
they are believers but openly deliberately sinning like the adulterer
in 1 Cor 5. He was worse than an unbeliever.

Unbelief is associated with unrighteousness and darkness. Many people
get very close to being believers but don't cross over into belief.
Remaining short of belief results in eternal death. You are either
righteous or unrighteous.

> > Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe
> > that regardless of any evidence." A disbeliever therefore must go on
> > to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> > person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
> > not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either. That defines
> > UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> > No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist
> > is an anti theist.
>
> No; Jain believers are, for the most part, atheist and pro-theist
> (more precisely, they are pro-non-Jain-theists of sramana faiths).

No person can possibly be an atheist and pro-theist at the same
moment. "A" and "pro" oppose.

> > A believer is a pro-theist.
>
> Is a believer in Teravada Buddhism a pro-theist?

No. Buddhism is a philosophy that bypasses any idea of deity. Navel
gazing. Looking within one's self for enlightenment. The fallacy of
that is if enlightenment is in there one should know it without going
on some mind journey to discover it. Another fallacy is not knowing
the true nature of such enlightenment from within. It could be evil
meant to destroy. Since it comes from within it's not manageable with
any assurances, can't be rejected or prevented from emerging. In
effect such "enlightenment" is simply inner thoughts. Until sufficient
knowledge goes in there is little or no value to inner thoughts. If
the thoughts are not based on a higher authority, one has no
education. Who wants to listen to the uneducated man whose thoughts he
considers superior to any that should have come from education? In our
society the man that sits mostly LISTENING is the wise one, not the
navel gazer extracting "enlightenment" from his body. If a man lives
by such nonsense he is a failure in every sense.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:27 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 7:44 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 22, 2:16 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "..beleif that there is no" = disbelief = absence of belief = lack of
> > > belief they're all synonomous.
>
> > I do know a moron. We don't call the boy a moron, but everyone knows
> > he is.
> > We just work around that and help him out. Teachers teach him how to
> > look up numbers in the phone book every day. We hope he'll remember
> > how at last someday. Your statement is moronic. Although there might
> > be shared synonyms for all 4 scenarios, synonyms are not equal
to
> > definitions. :) Gotcha.
>
> Gotcha? What are you, in third grade? Dumbfuck, there is a difference
> between synonyms and the word synonomous--look it up.

You need to work on the vocabulary. It isn't impressive. I'm glad you
represent atheists, though. You confirm the beliefs of many folks
concerning your kind.

Those three are not synonymous. Each term does have suitable synonyms,
though, not defining the other terms, not representing them
accurately. What you need to do is get a Thesaurus and try finding
matching synonyms for all three. Please do your homework soon.

For instance. How can a belief that there is no... equal "absence of
belief"? Having a belief whether positive or negative is not an
absence of a belief. Gotcha again. I really hate the idea of stomping
a guy while he's down, but you are begging for it.

> Furthermore, you
> will find that many definitions are not "equal" depending on the
> source. That's why you can find several definitions of the word
> atheist and a bevy of other differentiations on other words. Also, as
> a side note, you fuckin Christians can't decide or agree on what most
> of that shit you call a Bible means. Yet, you have the nuts to come
> here and tell atheists what it is to be an atheist. AT least most
> atheists can agree with similar definitions. You fuckin Christians are
> constantly crying about who is a "true" Chrstian and who is not.

I was right about assessing your vocabulary.

Someone needed to come here to straighten you folks out. It just isn't
right for you to remain in the dark about your atheism, unable to
define it. My goodness, I've done you a favor. Now you know the
definition of atheist the way the world sees it. If I saw you also
claiming the sky is falling I'd come to correct that too. You really
ought to try making some impression on people.

> > > If you think these definitions mean something other than "lack of
> > > belief" then explain each definition, seperately, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
> > > as to what you think they mean. And, stop acting like a fuckin
> > > crybaby.
>
> > Oh, my, you inject such barbarism! NBy now you've possibly read my
> > answers to other slightly more civil atheists.
>
> Nope. I havn't and I don't plan to read them. Sometimes barbarism is
> warranted given your natural tendency to condescend--dumbass.

Oh, so you are attempting to carry on a discussion with me with ear
plugs in, a sleep mask over your eyes and stereo blaring? That
certainly makes a lot of sense. To morons. Afraid of me? Is that it?
Maybe I'm a 65 pound weakling. Would you still be afraid of me? Well,
I think a LOT of people are reading it all, and by now they are
becoming amazed concerning your total ignorance and terrible behavior.
I suppose this is typical of all atheists. Nope, I didn't hear any
objections. BTW, now you will have to somehow go through life
wondering what I said about you in those unread posts.

Ah, but you jest. or lie. Aren't you the same "Scooter" that's been
responding to my posts above, like you responded to this post of mine?
I really think you need to be on some mental meds. Please don't let
all this take you over the edge.

> > > P.S. what do you want "atheism" to mean? Go ahead and give us YOUR
> > > definition--IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
>
> > Against existence of deity. The "A" in the word "atheism" means one
> > thing. AGAINST. A DISbelief. A REJECTION of a fact whether verifiable
> > or not. It's like "Abiotic. Something that kills life or prevents it.
> > "The "theism" part limits the problem to deity. An atheist MUST then
> > be against a belief in deity. If one doesn't reject the idea of
> > existence of deity, then one is not an atheist, but something else. If
> > you might not be an atheist, and are not a Christian, then why are you
> > HERE?
>
> Its greek---dumbfuck. And its derived from the word atheos. Theos,
> which means belief in god[s] OR deity and "a-" which means "without".
> It doesn't mean "against." as you claim--dumbass. "A" is not a
> rejection, nor does it indicate a rejection, of anything. It literally
> means "without". So, a-theist really means without a belief in god[s].

Do you mean like "amoral" is really just a person without morals? You
need to go look that up and compare it to "immoral". You've really
missed it. I already know about the Greek ἄθεος "godless". That Greek
word sure made a fine root for atheism. A reminder, your problem is
not a deficiency as in missing some vitamins in your diet. It was a
CHOICE to disbelieve.

> By the way, there is no such thing as an unverifyable fact. A fact is
> a fact BECAUSE it has been verified. Everything else is assumption,
> conjecture or assertion. Perhaps you should hook up with your retarded
> friend for some instruction.

Wrong. For instance, a scientist might have a list of facts he has
observed and described. It takes conjecture, an hypothesis, or a
theory to explain the facts. Facts must be repeatable, observed again
by other investigators.
One confirms facts as existing, true. In law what is presented as fact
must be tested to ascertain it is indeed fact or fallacy. If you
believe something is true it is a fact to you.

BTW, you misspelled unverifiable

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:40 pm, "Turner Hayes" <lordlacol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if his magic CDs can teach him Greek, too.

Yep, there's several Greek & Hebrew resources there, with full
pronunciations in audio.

Jim

[Ralph_S]

On 23 Jul, 02:32, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are agreeing with my thread of posts!

I am not sure where you get that idea.
One of the meanings of lack is 'to not have'. There doesn't have to be
a value judgement attached, even though you're intent on doing it.

"You lack the required $5
> for the ticket since you only have $4. You may not watch the movie."
> Lack is equal to not having what is necessary. The movie goer lacked
> only $1. He lacked having what was needed. His $4 was useless for the
> intended goal.

That example is totally irrelevant.

Any atheist lacking in any amount towards believing
> deity exists falls short of believing in existence of deity. One
> believes deity exists or does not believe that. It's YES or NO. In the
> case of an atheist it has to be a CHOICE, not a birth defect or some
> failure of an infant to pick up on information parents are talking
> about.

I grew up in a religious family, as did most atheists here. I may have
believed some of it, but overall the whole concept seemed
contradictory and made up to me. It still does. That's not a conscious
choice as far as I can tell.

The baby just looks at them and finally smiles, someday
> crawling, maybe saying "Daddy". An infant is not expected to engage in
> apologetics at age 6 months. I suppose you believe it's common for a
> newborn to come out of the womb preaching a sermon? At what age could
> a child be expected to offer prayer over a meal? It's been age 3 for
> ours. Can they explain God? Nope. Do they comprehend God? No more than
> they can comprehend the existence of the uncle they have yet to meet.
> Do they REJECT or ADOPT theism? Neither. They can't handle it. In a
> true sense they LACK sufficient knowledge to comprehend deity enough
> to worship out of respect. Atheists CHOOSE to REJECT whatever
> knowledge they gain about deity.
>
You may lack the intelligence required to imagine a world without your
deity.
I've heard the stories, I've been subjected to religious
indoctrination, and it didn't work. You may see that as a lack, but I
see rationality as an asset.

> Jim
>

Ralph
> On Jul 22, 4:33 pm, Ralph_S <ralph.savelsb...@gmail.com> wrote:

[bonfly]

Hi Jim (Sword_Swallower),

You typed (or at least you got your carer/nominee to type) "Disbelief

is saying "I refuse to believe that regardless of any evidence.""

Thanks for your opinion. We'll be upping your dose every four hours
from now. The term "disbelief" has nothing to do with whether or not
there is evidence. I hope you disbelieve in the reality of flying
gibbon-fish despite there being no evidential support.

You should stop smoking so much cock ... your brain appears to be
quite syphilitic enough as it is.

On Jul 23, 8:07 am, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 21, 4:12 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 3:49 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>

> > > According tohttp://www.atheists.org/Atheism/youbelieve any of

> > > their definition "Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing
> > > exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or
> > > function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates
> > > individual organic units. This definition means that there are no
> > > forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from
> > > physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural,
> > > nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."
>
> > This definition seems to say that atheists lack a belief in the
> > supernatural (instead of "gods").
>
> Let me fix that for you. Deity is considered among the educated as

> "supernatural entity". That can be regarded as a being, or maybe a

> river of energy flowing over earth and making a circuit around the
> universe. Therefore, atheists don't believe in deity or the
> supernatural in general, but might believe in say a lightning bolt as
> something suitably natural enough to stand in awe of something besides
> themselves.
>

> > > A simple definition is athttp://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0495300.html
> > > "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." or athttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist"one who believes that there is no deity".
>

> > These definitions say that atheists lack a belief in god[s].

>
> A little reading comprehension lesson is in order. To disbelieve

> something is to choose not to believe. UNbelief is lack of sufficient

> belief to be a believer in something, but the assumption is the person

> is not far from believing. Disbelief is saying "I refuse to believe

> that regardless of any evidence." A disbeliever therefore must go on
> to deny the existence of that which others believe exists. If the
> person admits the thing not believed might exist, then that person is
> not a disbeliever, but is not a believer either. That defines
> UNbeliever. Unbeliever is somewhere between disbeliever and believer.
> No atheist can be somewhere between non-theist and theist. An atheist

> is an anti theist. A believer is a pro-theist. Now wasn't that simple
> enough?
>

> Jim

[bonfly]

Cock_Swallower: " Well, I think a LOT of people are reading it all,

and by now they are becoming amazed concerning your total ignorance
and terrible behavior.

Responsorial: No, they just think you swallow an awful lot of cock.

On Jul 23, 4:26 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:46 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:25 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Then answer my question. Don't forget. WHICH supernatural things DO
> > atheists believe in?
>
> The Buddha believed in rebirth. Mahavira believed in jivas. One is
> tempted to translate it to "soul" but that doesn't convey the whole
> meaning unless you can comprehend a notion of cabbages having souls.
>
> They might have considered these natural, though, and denied that they
> were supernatural. Unless you agree with them, you might consider them
> atheists who believed in supernatural things.

Nope. I just got back from looking that up. No supernatural. All
internal. Entirely an enlightenment thing separate from anything
outside of the body. YOU might want to believe they believe in some
supernatural whatever, but they expressly deny that.

> > > Some Christians can handle everything of the Bible
> > except perhaps speaking in tongues.
>
> ... and handling snakes, drinking poisons and driving away demons?

We could make quite a list of things that strike the senses of
people.

> > They lack a belief in the need or
> > continued existence of that spiritual gift. We call that group
> > "unbeliever".
>
> Jesus calls the group that can move mountains, handle snakes and drink
> poisons believers. So, what might he call those who can't do these?
> Any guesses?

Some non Christians could copy those acts, like Jannes & Jambres who
stood against Moses, conjuring up a snake. I don't see a need to label
every possible niche. Sorcerers were pesky about such things. Not all
are called to handle snakes. Paul did, not by choice, but there's no
record of another apostle doing it. The idea of deliberately handling
snakes for a show is not godly behavior. Neither would be drinking
poison. But if forced to drink or accidentally ingesting one can pray
and expect safety. Christians "move mountains" frequently through
prayer. It's any obstruction preventing a mission given from God. Not
being able to do certain things isn't to do with unbelief. Many "jobs"
exist in the Church, spiritual gifts, abilities, not meant for all to
exercise. Some will have to handle a snake. Some will have to take
poison. Some will evangelize a nation while some might minister to one
remote tribe of 150 all their years. Some will effect miracles, but
not all. None do a job not directed by God.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:52 pm, "Keith MacNevins" <kmacnev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idol mind is the devil's workshop.

Try IDLE mind. Bad misquote there. Idols don't have a mind.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:55 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:45 pm, Word_Swordsman <Ouachitabassang...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 7:23 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Athttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.htmltheysay
> > > > "Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
> > > > gods.
>
> > > This is where atheism is defined. Belief in gods is absent from a
> > > lamppost but it isn't atheist because it's incapable of being theist.
> > > A newborn is capable of being theist; all that needs to happen is for
> > > one or more gods to show up and strut their stuff upon which the
> > > newborn would believe in them just as it believes in its mother.
>
> > No mother or child expert would agree an infant could choose to
> > believe in deity or comprehend deity. You have become mad. You
> > probably believe the family dog could become an expert in nuclear
> > physics. Ah, but I understand. We discriminate against them, not
> > giving them a chance to strut their stuff.
>
> If you believe in atom bombs, that doesn't mean you're a nuclear
> physicist. If Vishnu walks upside down on the ceiling, my dog would
> get the idea that he's not a mere man.

I doubt your dog would "think" a person doing that was out of line,
unless a perfect stranger. There is no Vishnu, so the dog won't see
that anyway.

> The same goes if Jesus runs (on
> water) after my dog while it's swimming after a duck in a lake,
> radiating light like an arc lamp.

Never fear, that won't happen.

> A wildcat would believe if Jesus
> resurrects a half-eaten rat, and would jump out of its skin the next
> time Jesus shows up while it is eating a ratl

Maybe in your dreams. A wildcat would normally run away upon seeing
anyone close by.

What's the point? All strange and extremely unlikely thoughts, having
apparently no relation at all to this discussion.

Jim

[Word_Swordsman]

On Jul 22, 9:59 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You lack belief in jinns (genies). You are incomplete. You will
> starve. Start believing in jinns for your own sake!

I haven't looked that one up, and probably won't. For now I have no
knowledge of that and don't feel cheated of anything. Since I do not
desire to follow jinns I do not lack in faith there. I have NO faith
whatsoever towards that. If I "lacked" that would mean I don't have
100% faith there. If I had 99% faith there I would lack 1%. I choose
to disbelieve in anything resembling what you are talking about.

Jim