The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief
66 views
Skip to first unread message
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 5, 2012, 11:13:24 AM5/5/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
obedience.
The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/0802476112
What is the first recorded instance of a theist claiming a nexus
between atheism and immorality? That is, what was the first time that
any theist said either that atheism leads to immorality or that
immorality leads to atheism? If anyone knows, that is.
with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
obedience.
The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/0802476112
What is the first recorded instance of a theist claiming a nexus
between atheism and immorality? That is, what was the first time that
any theist said either that atheism leads to immorality or that
immorality leads to atheism? If anyone knows, that is.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 5, 2012, 1:25:20 PM5/5/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
The first one that I'm aware of was the critiques of Carvakan atheist and materialist beliefs by the Brahmins of the era around 650BCE.
--
So, it's certainly not a new phenomenon or limited to Western religions like the Abrahamic religions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 5, 2012, 5:25:52 PM5/5/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
OMG, another christian writer and Biblical shit.
No thank you.
On May 6, 1:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
No thank you.
On May 6, 1:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/08024...
> Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>May 5, 2012, 8:29:57 PM5/5/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
> Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/08024...
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
>
> What is the first recorded instance of a theist claiming a nexus
> between atheism and immorality? That is, what was the first time that
> any theist said either that atheism leads to immorality or that
> immorality leads to atheism? If anyone knows, that is.
In my case I decided at a very young age that I didn't believe in God
> What is the first recorded instance of a theist claiming a nexus
> between atheism and immorality? That is, what was the first time that
> any theist said either that atheism leads to immorality or that
> immorality leads to atheism? If anyone knows, that is.
and this may well have been influenced by the fact that my parents
didn't either. My parents in turn, I believe, were atheists from early
childhood, their parents being atheists too, with the possible
exception of my maternal grandmother.
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 12:58:50 AM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 5, 8:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/08024...
> Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
>
> What is the first recorded instance of a theist claiming a nexus
> between atheism and immorality? That is, what was the first time that
> any theist said either that atheism leads to immorality or that
> immorality leads to atheism? If anyone knows, that is.
LL. Neither. Immorality leads to theism. Immoral people seek a way
> What is the first recorded instance of a theist claiming a nexus
> between atheism and immorality? That is, what was the first time that
> any theist said either that atheism leads to immorality or that
> immorality leads to atheism? If anyone knows, that is.
out from their guilt and fear, which may well be the source of all
theistic religion. Atheists have no need for false comforts.
......
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 2:58:35 AM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Neither atheism nor theism lead to immorality. And immorality does
not lead to either one.
According to my belief system, eating a piece of fruit brought
immorality into the human race. You may disagree about where it came
from but there is little doubt that immorality exists in many forms in
this world.
What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
"cure" for it.
Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
I think this might be the author's main point - that atheism offers a
different view of immorality and that for some people, that alternate
view is what makes unbelief more attractive to them (rather than the
claim that logic and reason is driving the lack of belief).
I think that is probably true for some atheists but definitely not
all.
not lead to either one.
According to my belief system, eating a piece of fruit brought
immorality into the human race. You may disagree about where it came
from but there is little doubt that immorality exists in many forms in
this world.
What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
"cure" for it.
Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
I think this might be the author's main point - that atheism offers a
different view of immorality and that for some people, that alternate
view is what makes unbelief more attractive to them (rather than the
claim that logic and reason is driving the lack of belief).
I think that is probably true for some atheists but definitely not
all.
> Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/08024...
> with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> obedience.
>
> The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 3:08:17 AM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
--
Ian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 3:56:48 AM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
How can a simple lack of belief in god or gods offer anything?
Atheists have their own independent ideas of right and wrong.
We are individuals (not sheep). We follow no creed or dogma.
We come to Atheism through our study and research and
decisions about not just the Christian religion, but religion in
general.
If you want to believe your mythology because someone
reportedly ate an apple at some unrecorded time in history,
well that's your decision.
What is abundantly clear to me from the statistics offered is
that the morality of the religious is a major cause of crime
and incarceration in our penal institutions.
That alone should worry any religious person, but it doesn't
seem to.
Atheists have their own independent ideas of right and wrong.
We are individuals (not sheep). We follow no creed or dogma.
We come to Atheism through our study and research and
decisions about not just the Christian religion, but religion in
general.
If you want to believe your mythology because someone
reportedly ate an apple at some unrecorded time in history,
well that's your decision.
What is abundantly clear to me from the statistics offered is
that the morality of the religious is a major cause of crime
and incarceration in our penal institutions.
That alone should worry any religious person, but it doesn't
seem to.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 8:39:46 AM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:58 AM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Neither atheism nor theism lead to immorality. And immorality does
not lead to either one.
Exactly.
Dogmatic and authoritarian belief systems lead to immorality.
These include religions which, depending on how authoritarian or dogmatic the sect is that the believer is in, can but will not necessarily, lead to immorality.
This is an important differentiation to make and is precisely what differentiates the bigots from the rational thinkers.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 8:46:44 AM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
<snipped>
What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
"cure" for it.
An insightful and true statement.
Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
Here's where I disagree. Atheism cannot and does not offer answers to immortality.
It's simply a descriptor which differentiates those who don't believe from those who do believe. Nothing more.
Christianity offers 2000 year old answers which for the most part have no relevance to today's world.
Everyone's desire for morality comes from our biological empathy. The moral values and principles we adhere to are developed as social constructs and have evolved through out the years.
Most Christians follow those social constructs while attributing to them their religion despite the fact that their Bible does not advocate them.
This is known as cognitive dissonance.
Atheist morality is rooted in the belief system of the atheist. This could be anything.
--
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 8:51:57 AM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 3:56 AM, philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snipped>
We come to Atheism through our study and research and
decisions about not just the Christian religion, but religion in
general.
You may have come to atheism this way but please don't generalize your experience to all atheists.
I did not "come to atheism". I was born an atheist, have always been an atheist and remain an atheist.
If you want to believe your mythology because someone
reportedly ate an apple at some unrecorded time in history,
well that's your decision.
What is abundantly clear to me from the statistics offered is
that the morality of the religious is a major cause of crime
and incarceration in our penal institutions.
All those statistics demonstrate is that religion does not make one moral or is no guarantee of morality.
They do not demonstrate that religion "is a major cause of crime ..."
Causation does not equal correlation.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 10:49:21 AM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 3:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
There are atheists who follow a creed. Look up "religious atheism".
> You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
There might even be some atheists who follow a creed and
presumptuously call their creed Atheism. Be that as it may, "Atheism
offers a form of morality that is not Bible morality" is like saying
"A-genie-ism offers a form of morality that is not Koran morality."
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 4:18:11 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
When I was looking up Ignosticism or igtheism,
I went through one oneline dictionary which had
Atheism and then this definition came under that.
Yet another had Ignosticism as a synonym for
Apatheism. I am amazed at the different "types"
of Atheism there are.
On May 7, 12:49 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
I went through one oneline dictionary which had
Atheism and then this definition came under that.
Yet another had Ignosticism as a synonym for
Apatheism. I am amazed at the different "types"
of Atheism there are.
On May 7, 12:49 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 5:21:43 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 1:18 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I was looking up Ignosticism or igtheism,
> I went through one oneline dictionary which had
> Atheism and then this definition came under that.
> Yet another had Ignosticism as a synonym for
> Apatheism. I am amazed at the different "types"
> of Atheism there are.
weasel words.
....
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 5:48:48 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Ha, ha, ha.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
Timbo
<thcustom@sbcglobal.net>May 6, 2012, 6:48:44 PM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sunday, May 6, 2012 2:58:35 AM UTC-4, frie...@yahoo.com wrote:
Neither atheism nor theism lead to immorality. And immorality does
not lead to either one.
According to my belief system, eating a piece of fruit brought
immorality into the human race. You may disagree about where it came
from but there is little doubt that immorality exists in many forms in
this world.
What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
"cure" for it.
Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
I think this might be the author's main point - that atheism offers a
different view of immorality and that for some people, that alternate
view is what makes unbelief more attractive to them (rather than the
claim that logic and reason is driving the lack of belief).
I think that is probably true for some atheists but definitely not
all.
I think where morality is concerned, theism tries to ignorantly follow morality while atheism believes it is learned behavior. I suppose while Atheist have some sort of socially accepted do and don'ts, they do not need a religious law, creed or commandments to learn to find pleasure in their moralities.
The idea that rules make one good is not stupid. The idea that one cannot be good without rules is stupid. In fact, the latter is of much higher purity than the former, therefore making it the higher accomplishment of the two. Those who need gods are simply to weak and afraid to take control and be responsible for their lives. For most theist it was determined. they were brought up relying on justifications instead of learning their own morality.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 7:05:49 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
still have the law in their hearts,
The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
I (or why do others) do wrong.
The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
"who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
But, the Christian knows that they can't go on blaming the devil for
their bad behavior and the atheist runs into a wall because soon there
is nothing that is immoral in their eyes. We all have one choice
(IMO), to cry out "God, have mercy on me!" and then rest in that mercy
and grace that is so freely given.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 7:17:32 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 5:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:58 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> <snipped>
>
> > What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
> > "cure" for it.
>
> An insightful and true statement.
>
>
>
> > Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
>
> Here's where I disagree. Atheism cannot and does not offer answers to
> immortality.
>
> It's simply a descriptor which differentiates those who don't believe from
> those who do believe. Nothing more.
>
That's true in terms of the label "atheist". But there has to be a
>
>
>
> <snipped>
>
> > What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
> > "cure" for it.
>
> An insightful and true statement.
>
>
>
> > Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
>
> Here's where I disagree. Atheism cannot and does not offer answers to
> immortality.
>
> It's simply a descriptor which differentiates those who don't believe from
> those who do believe. Nothing more.
>
belief system or perhaps a world view that allows a person to accept
that position of lack in belief in gods. And it is that common world
view or belief system that I refer to.
It is correct to say that atheism has no "position" on morality.
But... that in itself IS a position. It is taking the position that
decisions about morality are up to the individual.
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 7:21:51 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 4:05 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> still have the law in their hearts,
>
> The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> hearts, we can never seem to live up to it.
living up to whatever's in my heart. Besides the arterial plaque, I
mean.
> So we (Christians and
> atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
>
> While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> But, the Christian knows that they can't go on blaming the devil for
> their bad behavior and the atheist runs into a wall because soon there
> is nothing that is immoral in their eyes.
Tvertimod. There are lots of things that are immoral in my eyes.
> While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> But, the Christian knows that they can't go on blaming the devil for
> their bad behavior and the atheist runs into a wall because soon there
> is nothing that is immoral in their eyes.
Falsely labeling California fruit as genuine Washington State apples,
for example. The christian youth ministry, for another.
> We all have one choice
> (IMO), to cry out "God, have mercy on me!" and then rest in that mercy
> and grace that is so freely given.
>
mercy. I am perfectly willing to be judged for my actions. In fact, I
will inevitably BE judged on my actions.
Parenthetically, I cannot think of anything more depraved than a hope
for vicarious atonement -- except possibly for reliance on vicarious
atonement.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 7:30:15 PM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 6, 5:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:58 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>That's true in terms of the label "atheist". But there has to be a
>
>
> <snipped>
>
> > What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
> > "cure" for it.
>
> An insightful and true statement.
>
>
>
> > Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
>
> Here's where I disagree. Atheism cannot and does not offer answers to
> immortality.
>
> It's simply a descriptor which differentiates those who don't believe from
> those who do believe. Nothing more.
>
belief system or perhaps a world view that allows a person to accept
that position of lack in belief in gods.
Not at all. It's the default. People either believe or don't believe. There is no atheist belief system.
Non-believers have other belief systems like being FreeThinkers or Humanists or nothing or something else.
None of those belief systems are exclusively atheist even though most of those who follow those beliefs are.
And it is that common world
view or belief system that I refer to.
The only thing atheists have in common is that we have no god beliefs.
We can and do argue about everything else under the sun. Not having god beliefs doesn't mean that we agree on anything else.
It is correct to say that atheism has no "position" on morality.
But... that in itself IS a position. It is taking the position that
decisions about morality are up to the individual.
Not at all. It is pointing out that positions on morality have nothing to do with not having god beliefs.
Our desire for morality is biological and the constructs we develop are social. Yours are not going to be that different from mine.
You just think they are and you attribute yours to the Bible even though they don't, for the most part, exist in the Bible. A few very rudimentary ones might but that's it.
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 7:37:23 PM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:05:49 PM UTC-7, frie...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
still have the law in their hearts,
The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
I (or why do others) do wrong.
The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
"who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
That is not the usual atheist response. Stop misrepresenting us.
> > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 7:44:17 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 7, 9:05 am, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> still have the law in their hearts,
>
> The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
>
> While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
Secular law.
> While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
While our law is always playing "catch up" it does exist to
reflect societal expectations as to what is not acceptable
behaviour.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 8:10:48 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 4:44 pm, philosophy <catswhisker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 9:05 am, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> > Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> > still have the law in their hearts,
>
> > The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> > hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> > atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> > own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> > I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> > The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
> > devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
>
> > While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> > "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> Secular law.
> While our law is always playing "catch up" it does exist to
> reflect societal expectations as to what is not acceptable
> behaviour.
morality"
While I would agree with you that laws are designed to define what is
right and wrong - it seems that there are many things that are
considered to be immoral that are not illegal.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 8:14:02 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 4:37 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:05:49 PM UTC-7, frie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality,
> > but
> > > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> > Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> > still have the law in their hearts,
>
> > The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> > hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> > atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> > own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> > I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> > The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
> > devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
>
> > While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> > "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> That is not the usual atheist response. Stop misrepresenting us.
>
Christian claims the bible as a moral authority in the case of
something like sexual behavior and the atheist says that the bible has
no such authority.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 8:22:09 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 4:30 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 5:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:58 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
> > > > "cure" for it.
>
> > > An insightful and true statement.
>
> > > > Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
>
> > > Here's where I disagree. Atheism cannot and does not offer answers to
> > > immortality.
>
> > > It's simply a descriptor which differentiates those who don't believe
> > from
> > > those who do believe. Nothing more.
>
> > That's true in terms of the label "atheist". But there has to be a
> > belief system or perhaps a world view that allows a person to accept
> > that position of lack in belief in gods.
>
> Not at all. It's the default. People either believe or don't believe. There
> is no atheist belief system.
You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 5:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:58 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
> > > > "cure" for it.
>
> > > An insightful and true statement.
>
> > > > Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
>
> > > Here's where I disagree. Atheism cannot and does not offer answers to
> > > immortality.
>
> > > It's simply a descriptor which differentiates those who don't believe
> > from
> > > those who do believe. Nothing more.
>
> > That's true in terms of the label "atheist". But there has to be a
> > belief system or perhaps a world view that allows a person to accept
> > that position of lack in belief in gods.
>
> Not at all. It's the default. People either believe or don't believe. There
> is no atheist belief system.
is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief. That's
why they write books about it.
>
> Non-believers have other belief systems like being FreeThinkers or
> Humanists or nothing or something else.
>
> None of those belief systems are exclusively atheist even though most of
> those who follow those beliefs are.
>
> And it is that common world
>
> > view or belief system that I refer to.
>
> The only thing atheists have in common is that we have no god beliefs.
>
> We can and do argue about everything else under the sun. Not having god
> beliefs doesn't mean that we agree on anything else.
>
>
>
> > It is correct to say that atheism has no "position" on morality.
> > But... that in itself IS a position. It is taking the position that
> > decisions about morality are up to the individual.
>
> Not at all. It is pointing out that positions on morality have nothing to
> do with not having god beliefs.
>
Which is a "position" on morality.
>
> > It is correct to say that atheism has no "position" on morality.
> > But... that in itself IS a position. It is taking the position that
> > decisions about morality are up to the individual.
>
> Not at all. It is pointing out that positions on morality have nothing to
> do with not having god beliefs.
>
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 8:31:34 PM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 6, 4:30 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:17 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 5:46 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:58 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
> > > > "cure" for it.
>
> > > An insightful and true statement.
>
> > > > Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
>
> > > Here's where I disagree. Atheism cannot and does not offer answers to
> > > immortality.
>
> > > It's simply a descriptor which differentiates those who don't believe
> > from
> > > those who do believe. Nothing more.
>
> > That's true in terms of the label "atheist". But there has to be a
> > belief system or perhaps a world view that allows a person to accept
> > that position of lack in belief in gods.
>
> Not at all. It's the default. People either believe or don't believe. There
> is no atheist belief system.
is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief. That's
why they write books about it.
A non-belief isn't a belief. The books reflect anti-theist beliefs which are held by some, not all atheists.
Calling a non-belief a belief is like calling bald a hairstyle or not stamp collecting a hobby.
Those are just "denominations" or "sects" in the atheist world ;-\
>
> Non-believers have other belief systems like being FreeThinkers or
> Humanists or nothing or something else.
>
Sorry to disappoint but a non-belief is one that doesn't exist. You can't have sects or denominations in a non-belief.
That's like saying bald is a shiny hair style.
Haha - same with Christians!
> None of those belief systems are exclusively atheist even though most of
> those who follow those beliefs are.
>
> And it is that common world
>
> > view or belief system that I refer to.
>
> The only thing atheists have in common is that we have no god beliefs.
>
> We can and do argue about everything else under the sun. Not having god
> beliefs doesn't mean that we agree on anything else.
>
Except that Christians do agree on their core dogma. Jesus rose from the dead to save them from their sins.
A non-belief doesn't have any dogma. It's simply a belief that doesn't exist.
You believe that gods exist. Atheists don't have that belief.
>Which is a "position" on morality.
>
> > It is correct to say that atheism has no "position" on morality.
> > But... that in itself IS a position. It is taking the position that
> > decisions about morality are up to the individual.
>
> Not at all. It is pointing out that positions on morality have nothing to
> do with not having god beliefs.
>
A non-belief isn't a position on anything never mind morality. It's a belief that doesn't exist. Atheists don't have god beliefs.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 8:40:52 PM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
<snipped>
You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and promulgate that falsehood.
Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
I was born an atheist.
I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
I remain an atheist.
*Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
And no-one "comes to atheism". One is either an atheist or one *rejects theism* and then is an atheist because they no longer believe.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 6, 2012, 10:31:52 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 7:05 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> still have the law in their hearts,
>
> The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
> devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
> On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> still have the law in their hearts,
>
> The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
>
> While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> But, the Christian knows that they can't go on blaming the devil for
> their bad behavior and the atheist runs into a wall because soon there
> is nothing that is immoral in their eyes. We all have one choice
> (IMO), to cry out "God, have mercy on me!" and then rest in that mercy
> and grace that is so freely given.
>
Suppose there was a man in 100BC whose donkey gave birth to its first
> While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> But, the Christian knows that they can't go on blaming the devil for
> their bad behavior and the atheist runs into a wall because soon there
> is nothing that is immoral in their eyes. We all have one choice
> (IMO), to cry out "God, have mercy on me!" and then rest in that mercy
> and grace that is so freely given.
>
baby and the man failed to either sacrifice a lamb or break the baby
donkey's neck. Did the donkey owner exhibit bad behavior by not
obeying the law in Exodus 34 requiring a donkey owner to either break
a baby donkey's neck or sacrifice a lamb? If so, and if the man had
prayed "Have mercy on me who failed to break that baby donkey's neck"
would God have freely given him mercy?
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 11:18:52 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
well, maybe taxation and parking restrictions.
.......
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 11:22:48 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
morality. She said it has nothing to do with god beliefs.
....
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 11:26:24 PM5/6/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sunday, May 6, 2012 5:14:02 PM UTC-7, frie...@yahoo.com wrote:
On May 6, 4:37 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:05:49 PM UTC-7, frie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality,
> > but
> > > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> > Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> > still have the law in their hearts,
>
> > The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> > hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> > atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> > own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> > I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> > The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
> > devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
>
> > While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> > "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> That is not the usual atheist response. Stop misrepresenting us.
>
Isn't it?
No, it isn't.
The usual exchange is between Christians and atheists. The
Christian claims the bible as a moral authority in the case of
something like sexual behavior and the atheist says that the bible has
no such authority.
Atheists declining to recognize the Bible as their moral authority is entirely and qualitatively different from an atheist "redefining" what is immoral by saying "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong?" Apples and oranges. And it is also presumptuous of Christians to assume theirs is the basis for all morality - no one is redefining anything.
Besides, it's not entirely accurate way to describe what I think in the first place. I would say the Bible has no such authority to dictate my moral values, but that the Bible is an authority (a pretty loose authority IMO) for Christians. That's a simple, factual statement.
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
philosophy
<catswhiskers09@gmail.com>May 6, 2012, 11:35:53 PM5/6/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Where a really interesting question comes in is
"Do Christians see followers of other religions
as being amoral because they don't have the
Christian morals"?
> moral values, but that the Bible *is* an authority (a pretty loose
> > > > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
"Do Christians see followers of other religions
as being amoral because they don't have the
Christian morals"?
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>May 7, 2012, 12:19:57 AM5/7/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Not quite. The sentence should read "... it seems that there are many things that are considered by some to be immoral that are not illegal" to be true. For example, I think it's immoral to indoctrinate children into religion and I assume you don't. Conversely, there are other things that we all agree are immoral: like murder, like theft, like fraud. Instead of hoping that God will deliver justice we do it ourselves, and we are much more just than God is (supposing he's there to do anything at all). For one thing, the courts of our civil societies don't sentence anyone to eternal torture for anything, let alone thought crimes.
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Timbo
<thcustom@sbcglobal.net>May 7, 2012, 12:36:34 PM5/7/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Perfection! Thanks Neil
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 8, 2012, 2:46:20 AM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
> > is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
>
> Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and
> promulgate that falsehood.
>
> Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
>
> I was born an atheist.
> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> I remain an atheist.
I submit that you would not see that as your experience without having
>
> <snipped>
>
> > You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
> > is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
>
> Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and
> promulgate that falsehood.
>
> Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
>
> I was born an atheist.
> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> I remain an atheist.
read or heard or otherwise corroborated that systematic view of your
experience with others.
>
> *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 3:06:59 AM5/8/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:46 AM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
> > is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
>
> Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and
> promulgate that falsehood.
>
> Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
>
> I was born an atheist.
> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> I remain an atheist.
I submit that you would not see that as your experience without having
read or heard or otherwise corroborated that systematic view of your
experience with others.
Why do you need others to confirm what you have decided. I decided I was an atheist after being in a C of E environment and confirmed it after years of research .
>
> *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
I have had god trust at me one way or another all my life. I would be worn out if I tried to reject ever last one of them
> And no-one "comes to atheism". One is either an atheist or one *rejects
> theism* and then is an atheist because they no longer believe.
>
> --
>
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony
>
> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
>
> http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
>
> Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
TLC
<tlc.terence@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 6:11:14 AM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
What has atheism got to do with morality? Not much really, only that
sometimes it stops people following the most immoral teachings
throughout history, religious ones.
If atheists use a "systematic approach" it's only in trying to
understand the brutal behaviour which religions advocate and
propagate.
Christians should look at the most immoral times in history and see
they were dominated by christianity. Or, do you think that slavery,
serfdom, genocide, mass starvation, colonialism etc, came from atheist
or christian morality?
sometimes it stops people following the most immoral teachings
throughout history, religious ones.
If atheists use a "systematic approach" it's only in trying to
understand the brutal behaviour which religions advocate and
propagate.
Christians should look at the most immoral times in history and see
they were dominated by christianity. Or, do you think that slavery,
serfdom, genocide, mass starvation, colonialism etc, came from atheist
or christian morality?
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 6:28:41 AM5/8/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:46 AM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>I submit that you would not see that as your experience without having
> <snipped>
>
> > You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
> > is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
>
> Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and
> promulgate that falsehood.
>
> Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
>
> I was born an atheist.
> I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> I remain an atheist.
read or heard or otherwise corroborated that systematic view of your
experience with others.
That's like saying if your muscles hurt and you didn't exercise they hurt because you didn't exercise.
What experience are you talking about? Is *not* being exposed to religious indoctrination an experience?
There is a default state which may or may not change with experience.
Atheism is the default state. It can be changed with religious indoctrination or other experiences which motivate the change.
If no experience occurs to motivate any change one remains in their default state.
Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
>
> *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
Many atheists reject god beliefs because they are incoherent. Some atheists reject them for other reasons.
However, since atheism is a default state and there is no dogma to cling to, the reason for rejection isn't to remain an atheist for many of us.
The reason for the rejection of the god definition or religion is usually because accepting an incoherent definition or irrational beliefs doesn't make any sense to many atheists.
> And no-one "comes to atheism". One is either an atheist or one *rejects
> theism* and then is an atheist because they no longer believe.
>
> --
>
> "To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..."
> --Susan B. Anthony
>
> "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a
> fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
>
> http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
>
> Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 8:54:30 AM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 7, 11:46 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
> > > is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
>
> > Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and
> > promulgate that falsehood.
>
> > Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
>
> > I was born an atheist.
> > I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> > I remain an atheist.
>
> I submit that you would not see that as your experience without having
> read or heard or otherwise corroborated that systematic view of your
> experience with others.
>
not need a systemic approach to step over cow patties. You just need
to walk observantly, and step carefully.
>
>
> > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
overstatements of the obvious. But rejection does not imply a system.
Let's recast that statement. "Once a cigarette is presented to a non-
smoker, he must reject it for one reason or another - else they cease
to be a non-smoker." Does our hypothetical non-smoker require a
systemic approach to decline the cigarette? Or does he simply refuse
it?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 8, 2012, 10:32:36 AM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 2:46 am, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
Once the idea of a flat earth is presented to an aflatearther, he/she
> On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
must reject it or cease to be an aflatearther.
>
One problem with the stricture is that people don't identify
themselves as aflatearthers; likewise, there are atheists who refuse
to identify themselves as atheist on the basis that it is asinine to
identify oneself by (just) one of the many things one does not believe
in.
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 8, 2012, 11:33:48 AM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 7:32 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
the vast majority of people we have to deal with every day do, is an
outstanding non-belief that trumps all others. Nothing else comes
close, not even a flat earth, astrology or space aliens among others
in our midst. Atheists could just call themselves rationalists and
be done with it, but theists won't let it alone. They continue to try
to shout atheists down regarding their disbelief in their god, loudly
and unceasingly--and not only atheists but everyone else in the world
who might be believing in the "wrong" god and the "wrong" set of
irrational myths and instructions. You don't find that with flat
earthers or any other group of people who hold irrational beliefs.
There is good reason that atheists feel the need to state their non-
belief in any god. We are in danger of being run down by one
thundering mob or another.
.......
......
.....
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 8, 2012, 3:03:56 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 5:54 am, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 11:46 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > > > You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
> > > > is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
>
> > > Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and
> > > promulgate that falsehood.
>
> > > Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
>
> > > I was born an atheist.
> > > I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> > > I remain an atheist.
>
> > I submit that you would not see that as your experience without having
> > read or heard or otherwise corroborated that systematic view of your
> > experience with others.
>
> You do not need a systemic approach to reject bullshit, just as you do
> not need a systemic approach to step over cow patties. You just need
> to walk observantly, and step carefully.
>
>
>
> > > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> > Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> > for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
> OK. And the sun is hot, and vomit is disgusting, and various other
> overstatements of the obvious. But rejection does not imply a system.
>
Yes it does. "Hot" and "disgusting" are relative terms. Some people
>
> > > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> > Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> > for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
> OK. And the sun is hot, and vomit is disgusting, and various other
> overstatements of the obvious. But rejection does not imply a system.
>
love living in Arizona and some dogs love vomit. Rejection implies a
value judgement based on some set of values.
> Let's recast that statement. "Once a cigarette is presented to a non-
> smoker, he must reject it for one reason or another - else they cease
> to be a non-smoker." Does our hypothetical non-smoker require a
> systemic approach to decline the cigarette? Or does he simply refuse
> it?
that it is unhealthy, etc... and those reasons flow with a systematic
view of himself ("I don't give in to peer pressure", "I don't engage
in unhealthy habits")
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 8, 2012, 3:08:42 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
> On May 8, 2:46 am, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> > Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> > for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
> Once the idea of a flat earth is presented to an aflatearther, he/she
> must reject it or cease to be an aflatearther.
>
exactly
>
> > > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> > Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> > for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
> Once the idea of a flat earth is presented to an aflatearther, he/she
> must reject it or cease to be an aflatearther.
>
> One problem with the stricture is that people don't identify
> themselves as aflatearthers; likewise, there are atheists who refuse
> to identify themselves as atheist on the basis that it is asinine to
> identify oneself by (just) one of the many things one does not believe
> in.
definition a "flat earther" whether you identify yourself as one or
not. that doesn't mean that you have to then "identify yourself" by
ALL of the things that you don't believe - but at the point when you
are engaged for one reason or another in a conversation with others or
with yourself regarding the shape of the earth - at that moment you
are a "flatEarther" (if in fact your view on the matter is that the
earth is flat)
lawrey
<lawrenceel@btinternet.com>May 8, 2012, 4:08:56 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
ranjit,
Since when did religion of non-belief in god/s have anything
remotely to do with immorality. What a load of bunk.
On May 5, 4:13 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
Since when did religion of non-belief in god/s have anything
remotely to do with immorality. What a load of bunk.
On May 5, 4:13 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 8, 2012, 5:14:09 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
those with no opinion on the earth's shape and those whose opinion is
that the earth has a shape other than flat. Are they all
aflatearthers?
>
> (if in fact your view on the matter is that the earth is flat)
>
I see. If only flatearthers have a use for a term such as
> (if in fact your view on the matter is that the earth is flat)
>
aflatearther, do only theists have a use for the term atheist? If so,
why should atheists agree to identify themselves by a (potentially
pejorative) label (atheist) given to them by theists?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 8, 2012, 5:21:30 PM5/8/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 4:08 pm, lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> ranjit,
>
> Since when did religion of non-belief in god/s have anything
> remotely to do with immorality. What a load of bunk.
>
You're forgetting that this is immorality as defined by a theist.
> ranjit,
>
> Since when did religion of non-belief in god/s have anything
> remotely to do with immorality. What a load of bunk.
>
Suppose Osama's definition of an immoral woman was one who wears a
tent (covering her face and body) and suppose statistics show that no
atheist woman wears a tent. Then, atheism may be suspected/ said to
cause immorality as Osama defines immorality.
Birric Forcella
<erniecat1@gmail.com>May 5, 2012, 10:33:30 PM5/5/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
I think the good professor is right on the money - though it doesn't
mean what he thinks it means or what Ranjit thinks it means.
For one thing, his points hardly figure into an argument if god exists
or not.
But otherwise - sure - Christians and atheists have different
lifestyles (though sometimes you wonder). As an atheist I can have
all the sex I want - a Christian cannot. Does that make me feel good
about atheism? You bet it does! But it's not an argument for or
against the existence of god.
When I was about 13 or 14 I tried quite honestly to make myself
belive. In short order I came to see what you lose if you accept
Pascal's wager. You couldn't have sex, you couldn't play with
yourself, you felt guilty at any 'dirty' thought. Then came all that
parying, churchgoing, and planning your day around Jesus. And all the
time you had to watch yourself - not to mention the gnawing feeling
that your deeds and thoughts were watched.
Well, I soon decided "screw that!"
So, yes, probably I became a proto-atheist because I wanted to remain
naughty. But I remained an atheist because I had a brain. If someone
could show me that there is a god who wants me to do something - of
course I would do it. But since there isn't, my morality is my
responsibility. I'm an atheist - I certainly make myself live up to
higher standards than the Bible has. Feeling guilty about harmless
pleasure is just not one of them.
Indeed, most atheists I meet are way too moral for my taste. For one
thing, I am unabashedly in favor of promiscuity and abolishing
marriage altogether. Most atheists I meet want 'committed
relationships' or marriage. Most atheists wouldn't steal your money -
we leave that to TV preachers.
But none of this has any weight in the question if god exists or not.
mean what he thinks it means or what Ranjit thinks it means.
For one thing, his points hardly figure into an argument if god exists
or not.
But otherwise - sure - Christians and atheists have different
lifestyles (though sometimes you wonder). As an atheist I can have
all the sex I want - a Christian cannot. Does that make me feel good
about atheism? You bet it does! But it's not an argument for or
against the existence of god.
When I was about 13 or 14 I tried quite honestly to make myself
belive. In short order I came to see what you lose if you accept
Pascal's wager. You couldn't have sex, you couldn't play with
yourself, you felt guilty at any 'dirty' thought. Then came all that
parying, churchgoing, and planning your day around Jesus. And all the
time you had to watch yourself - not to mention the gnawing feeling
that your deeds and thoughts were watched.
Well, I soon decided "screw that!"
So, yes, probably I became a proto-atheist because I wanted to remain
naughty. But I remained an atheist because I had a brain. If someone
could show me that there is a god who wants me to do something - of
course I would do it. But since there isn't, my morality is my
responsibility. I'm an atheist - I certainly make myself live up to
higher standards than the Bible has. Feeling guilty about harmless
pleasure is just not one of them.
Indeed, most atheists I meet are way too moral for my taste. For one
thing, I am unabashedly in favor of promiscuity and abolishing
marriage altogether. Most atheists I meet want 'committed
relationships' or marriage. Most atheists wouldn't steal your money -
we leave that to TV preachers.
But none of this has any weight in the question if god exists or not.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 9, 2012, 1:25:57 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 2:14 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > (if in fact your view on the matter is that the earth is flat)
>
> I see. If only flatearthers have a use for a term such as
> aflatearther, do only theists have a use for the term atheist? If so,
> why should atheists agree to identify themselves by a (potentially
> pejorative) label (atheist) given to them by theists?
Christian, but for the sake of brevity, that is what I am.
Atheists seem to love the description "lack of belief in gods" - that
is a fine enough description but the short version for that is
"atheist".
The point that I have been arguing in this thread is that a lack of
belief in gods is not simply the default for humans. It is a position
that is arrived at after some consideration. I know that several
atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
but they rejected that idea.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 9, 2012, 1:44:04 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
> So, yes, probably I became a proto-atheist because I wanted to remain
> naughty. But I remained an atheist because I had a brain.
What the prof is claiming is that your desire to be naughty tricked
> naughty. But I remained an atheist because I had a brain.
you into thinking that unbelief is smart.
This is a idea from the bible - the bible says that unbelief blinds
the mind (2 Corinthians 4:4).
You can consider this idea in a totally different context - consider
the old saying "love is blind". We have all known someone in an
abusive relationship and yet they cannot "see" it. Using poetic
language you could say that often our hearts tell our brains how they
should think. Or, in the case you described, it was another part of
your anatomy telling your brain what to think :-D
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 2:07:49 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
claim IS the default position, just as not believing in Zeus or any
other god is YOUR default position.
It is a position
> that is arrived at after some consideration. I know that several
> atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> but they rejected that idea.
the existence of gods, but it doesn't matter if some have. You have
probably considered the existence of other gods yourself. How does
that affect your rejection of them now? Are you wavering in your
disbelief?
.....
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 2:10:05 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 10:44 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > So, yes, probably I became a proto-atheist because I wanted to remain
> > naughty. But I remained an atheist because I had a brain.
>
> What the prof is claiming is that your desire to be naughty tricked
> you into thinking that unbelief is smart.
>
> This is a idea from the bible - the bible says that unbelief blinds
> the mind (2 Corinthians 4:4).
>
> You can consider this idea in a totally different context - consider
> the old saying "love is blind". We have all known someone in an
> abusive relationship and yet they cannot "see" it. Using poetic
> language you could say that often our hearts tell our brains how they
> should think. Or, in the case you described, it was another part of
> your anatomy telling your brain what to think
........
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 7:02:12 AM5/9/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Atheists seem to love the description "lack of belief in gods" - that
is a fine enough description but the short version for that is
"atheist".
The point that I have been arguing in this thread is that a lack of
belief in gods is not simply the default for humans. It is a position
that is arrived at after some consideration.
Only by *some* atheists. Those who have been indoctrinated into religious belief.
The rest of us didn't have to consider theism to be atheists.
And amongst the rest of us some did consider theism independently and rejected for many reasons thereby *remaining* atheists.
And some have never bothered to or cared enough to consider theism or gods and just remained atheists without giving it any thought.
I know that several
atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
but they rejected that idea.
And what about those implicit atheists who never rejected the idea? They never thought about it at all or cared.
I have relatives who are like that.
Are they not atheists? If not, what are they?
And are the Paraha not atheists?
They are an isolated tribe who were never exposed to god beliefs until recently and their response to being introduced to them was that they had no clue what the person was talking about.
Were they only atheists after they said they didn't understand what the person was talking about or what this thing called gods were?
That doesn't even make sense FriendHis.
Although the irrational atheists would agree with you.
--
Steve in Virginia
<resurgam167@yahoo.com>May 9, 2012, 8:49:56 AM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
The point I think you're missing is the prevalence of religious
indoctrination. Belief in a god or gods is not a default position,
it is a learned behavior that is cultivated in the young and
reinforced by societal pressure, custom, ritual, and in some cases the
law. The fact that many atheists go through a period of reconsidering
their religious beliefs has nothing to do with overcoming some hard-
wired psychological default that humans are born with an inherent
belief in the supernatural. On the contrary, atheists - especially
those who formerly held religious beliefs - reassess their religious
conditioning by examining both the presumptions that supernatural
entities exists and accompanying evidence supporting such claims. The
fact that there is no evidence of a supernatural agency or
incontrovertible physical evidence is the foundation of their
position. Obviously, people who have never been indoctrinated into
some religious belief system do not face the need to reevaluate their
religious. If there is a default position it would be atheism - since
religious beliefs require a suspension of one's reasoning and
intellectual abilities in order to accept outrageous claims that defy
logic, science, physical evidence, rational thought and common sense.
Steve
indoctrination. Belief in a god or gods is not a default position,
it is a learned behavior that is cultivated in the young and
reinforced by societal pressure, custom, ritual, and in some cases the
law. The fact that many atheists go through a period of reconsidering
their religious beliefs has nothing to do with overcoming some hard-
wired psychological default that humans are born with an inherent
belief in the supernatural. On the contrary, atheists - especially
those who formerly held religious beliefs - reassess their religious
conditioning by examining both the presumptions that supernatural
entities exists and accompanying evidence supporting such claims. The
fact that there is no evidence of a supernatural agency or
incontrovertible physical evidence is the foundation of their
position. Obviously, people who have never been indoctrinated into
some religious belief system do not face the need to reevaluate their
religious. If there is a default position it would be atheism - since
religious beliefs require a suspension of one's reasoning and
intellectual abilities in order to accept outrageous claims that defy
logic, science, physical evidence, rational thought and common sense.
Steve
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 1:26:28 PM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 8, 12:03 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 5:54 am, Duke of Omnium <duke.of.omn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 11:46 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 6, 5:40 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 8:22 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > <snipped>
>
> > > > > You can cal it something else, or you can call it nothing, but there
> > > > > is a systematic approach that leads to this lack of belief.
>
> > > > Here's a question that I ask the irrational atheists who agree with you and
> > > > promulgate that falsehood.
>
> > > > Please explain what "systematic approach" I used to "come to" atheism.
>
> > > > I was born an atheist.
> > > > I was never indoctrinated into any religion.
> > > > I remain an atheist.
>
> > > I submit that you would not see that as your experience without having
> > > read or heard or otherwise corroborated that systematic view of your
> > > experience with others.
>
> > You do not need a systemic approach to reject bullshit, just as you do
> > not need a systemic approach to step over cow patties. You just need
> > to walk observantly, and step carefully.
>
> That sounds like a systematic approach to me
whatsoever. Goalpost-shifting – how christian of you!
>
> > > > *Some* atheists use a systematic approach to *reject* theism.
>
> > > Once the idea of God is presented to an atheist, they must reject it
> > > for one reason or another - else they cease to be an atheist.
>
> > OK. And the sun is hot, and vomit is disgusting, and various other
> > overstatements of the obvious. But rejection does not imply a system.
>
> Yes it does. "Hot" and "disgusting" are relative terms. Some people
> love living in Arizona and some dogs love vomit. Rejection implies a
> value judgement based on some set of values.
>
fleeting prejudices. But you probably are.
> > Let's recast that statement. "Once a cigarette is presented to a non-
> > smoker, he must reject it for one reason or another - else they cease
> > to be a non-smoker." Does our hypothetical non-smoker require a
> > systemic approach to decline the cigarette? Or does he simply refuse
> > it?
>
> He refuses for a reason - he doesn't like the smell, or he has heard
> that it is unhealthy, etc... and those reasons flow with a systematic
> view of himself ("I don't give in to peer pressure", "I don't engage
> in unhealthy habits")
find something that was NOT systemic. Thanks for trivializing your
argument. You do our work for us
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 9, 2012, 3:35:56 PM5/9/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Where does it do this considering - in the womb?
>
> I know that several
> atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> but they rejected that idea.
>
One have to hear of the concept of gods before one can consider the
> I know that several
> atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> but they rejected that idea.
>
idea of their existence. Atheists who have never heard of such a
concept have not considered it and are thereby unable to either accept
or reject it.
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 5:56:18 PM5/9/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
That is rather an empty statement if you have read what atheists on this list say they have done. Most appear to have come to that conclusion by research.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 9, 2012, 7:10:11 PM5/9/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
<snipped>
> He refuses for a reason - he doesn't like the smell, or he has heard> that it is unhealthy, etc... and those reasons flow with a systematicGiven your apparent definition of "system", you'd be hard-pressed to
> view of himself ("I don't give in to peer pressure", "I don't engage
> in unhealthy habits")
find something that was NOT systemic. Thanks for trivializing your
argument. You do our work for us
No doubt :-D
Not to mention the fact that he has now admitted that people "refuse for a reason". Yes, those who reject theism, do so for a reason - "he doesn't like the" belief, "or he has heard that it is harmful, etc..." and those reason flow with a systematic view of himself ("I don't like mindlessness or authoritarianism", "I don't accept things as true just because an old book says so", etc.).
I agree!
That still doesn't support that claim that many don't reject theism. They are atheists simply because they're not theists.
The Paraha never rejected theism nor did my sister. They are atheists simply because they're not theists.
I dismissed theism as not being rational and therefore saw no reason to change my default state.
There was nothing to reject. The Bible is frigging insane. It's not even a good mythology. Aesop's Fables is much better.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 1:34:07 AM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
mean is "no convincing evidence has been presented".
And that's a valid position to take - after having heard the evidence
offered, the decide that you are not convinced. I don't know why
atheists have a problem admitting to that.
BTW, I believe in Zeus - I don't believe in Zeus in the same way that
I believe in Jesus (in the sense that I "put my trust in him"). My
belief in Zeus is more about my belief that the stories about Zeus
have some connection to real events and encounters that ancient people
had with angels and demons.
> It is a position
>
> > that is arrived at after some consideration. I know that several
> > atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> > one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> > but they rejected that idea.
>
> LL. There are a lot of atheists who have never considered the idea of
> the existence of gods, but it doesn't matter if some have.
this?
> You have
> probably considered the existence of other gods yourself. How does
> that affect your rejection of them now?
to do so.
> Are you wavering in your
> disbelief?
>
> .....
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 2:04:17 AM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 9, 4:02 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:25 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Atheists seem to love the description "lack of belief in gods" - that
> > is a fine enough description but the short version for that is
> > "atheist".
>
> > The point that I have been arguing in this thread is that a lack of
> > belief in gods is not simply the default for humans. It is a position
> > that is arrived at after some consideration.
>
> Only by *some* atheists. Those who have been indoctrinated into religious
> belief.
>
> The rest of us didn't have to consider theism to be atheists.
>
I think you're missing my meaning. When we have a conversation about
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Atheists seem to love the description "lack of belief in gods" - that
> > is a fine enough description but the short version for that is
> > "atheist".
>
> > The point that I have been arguing in this thread is that a lack of
> > belief in gods is not simply the default for humans. It is a position
> > that is arrived at after some consideration.
>
> Only by *some* atheists. Those who have been indoctrinated into religious
> belief.
>
> The rest of us didn't have to consider theism to be atheists.
>
god, there is an explicit or implicit request going both ways. The
Christian is saying to the atheist "have you considered the idea that
maybe there is a god?" And the atheist is saying to the Christian
"have you considered the idea that there are no gods?"
So, unless we are being really rude and insensitive, EVERY person that
has ever engaged in a discussion with a person that has a different
viewpoint than they have, has considered that other viewpoint.
More often than not, we find reasons to justify our existing point of
view and reject that of the other person - though there are notable
exceptions - we call those "conversions" ;). But short of conversion,
a productive discussion may open our minds a little more than they
were before. While we might not change our point of view, we might
gain an appreciation for the other point of view and begin to see it
as reasonable (even if it is completely improbable as far as we can
see).
> And amongst the rest of us some did consider theism independently and
> rejected for many reasons thereby *remaining* atheists.
>
> And some have never bothered to or cared enough to consider theism or gods
> and just remained atheists without giving it any thought.
>
> I know that several
>
> > atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> > one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> > but they rejected that idea.
>
> And what about those implicit atheists who never rejected the idea? They
> never thought about it at all or cared.
>
> I have relatives who are like that.
>
> Are they not atheists? If not, what are they?
>
Christian?
> And are the Paraha not atheists?
>
but they believe in spirits and they even claim to see them (when
outsiders can't see them)
But let's assume there was an isolated person or persons that had
never had the thought occur to them that there was a creator or
anything like that. Yes, those persons would be atheists. But as
soon as they met someone and had a conversation with that person about
gods, they would lose their "atheism virginity".
So I'll acknowledge that a pure atheist virgin may exist somewhere,
but I certainly don't know any - and let's face it, this group is
populated by atheist sluts that have considered the claims of
Christianity nine ways to Sunday :)
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 2:16:56 AM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
I didn't say that belief in god is the default. When we think about
the "default" we tend to think of a baby or we imagine a person with
zero contact with any people that might influence their ideas about
god. But we can't really access the mind of a baby and we can't find
such an isolated person.
We do know that humans invented religion. You might be surprised that
I would say that, but yes I believe that religion is a human
invention. The question is, "why did humans invent it?"
If there is a default position, I would argue that it is a position of
inquiry or wondering. I think that we are born with a natural desire
to ask questions and try to find answers. And I personally don't see
that as atheism or theism because both atheists and theists continue
to ask questions.
the "default" we tend to think of a baby or we imagine a person with
zero contact with any people that might influence their ideas about
god. But we can't really access the mind of a baby and we can't find
such an isolated person.
We do know that humans invented religion. You might be surprised that
I would say that, but yes I believe that religion is a human
invention. The question is, "why did humans invent it?"
If there is a default position, I would argue that it is a position of
inquiry or wondering. I think that we are born with a natural desire
to ask questions and try to find answers. And I personally don't see
that as atheism or theism because both atheists and theists continue
to ask questions.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 2:20:02 AM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 9, 12:35 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
otherwise?
> > I know that several
> > atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> > one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> > but they rejected that idea.
>
> One have to hear of the concept of gods before one can consider the
> idea of their existence. Atheists who have never heard of such a
> concept have not considered it and are thereby unable to either accept
> or reject it.
I can fix that :)
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 10, 2012, 2:33:31 AM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:16 AM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I didn't say that belief in god is the default. When we think about
the "default" we tend to think of a baby or we imagine a person with
zero contact with any people that might influence their ideas about
god. But we can't really access the mind of a baby and we can't find
such an isolated person.
We do know that humans invented religion. You might be surprised that
I would say that, but yes I believe that religion is a human
invention. The question is, "why did humans invent it?"
If there is a default position, I would argue that it is a position of
inquiry or wondering. I think that we are born with a natural desire
to ask questions and try to find answers. And I personally don't see
that as atheism or theism because both atheists and theists continue
to ask questions.
I grant you we are born with active neurons in the brain and they are programmed from birth to use our other senses to make sense of the world we inhabit but it is our experience's even before birth that form our choices in life. We do not just ask questions we reject those that do not fit our needs.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 2:42:19 AM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 10, 2012, 4:20:30 AM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Now how do you imagine they do that given that they do not know what the word means.
> One have to hear of the concept of gods before one can consider the
> > I know that several
> > atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> > one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> > but they rejected that idea.
>
> idea of their existence. Atheists who have never heard of such a
> concept have not considered it and are thereby unable to either accept
> or reject it.
Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
I can fix that :)
Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God otherwise they would just be people and not call themselves Atheists.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 10, 2012, 7:24:48 AM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Okay but there are still two problems with what you are saying.
1. Not being convinced isn't rejecting. It's not being convinced enough to accept. Those are two different things.
If you tell me there's a fairy on my shoulder, I'm not going to take you seriously enough to reject your claim. I'm simply going to dismiss it and suggest you see a shrink.
2. Not everyone has those conversations or gives them any thought. I have relatives who will simply dismiss any discussion on the topic since they find it uninteresting and about as relevant as discussing that alleged fairy on my shoulder.
The Praha are a perfect example of this. They are a completely isolated tribal atheistic culture whose contact with "civilization" was very recent. As a result their introduction to the concept of gods was also very recent.
Are you saying that they weren't atheists before a Christian missionary discovered them and introduced them to the concept of gods?
He became an atheist by the way ;-D
They have to now - I'm asking them to :)
> And amongst the rest of us some did consider theism independently and
> rejected for many reasons thereby *remaining* atheists.
>
> And some have never bothered to or cared enough to consider theism or gods
> and just remained atheists without giving it any thought.
>
> I know that several
>
> > atheists disagree, but those same atheists cannot deny that they at
> > one time or another they considered the idea of the existence of gods
> > but they rejected that idea.
>
> And what about those implicit atheists who never rejected the idea? They
> never thought about it at all or cared.
>
Some of my relatives will simply look at you like an idiot and tell you to go away ;-D
Does that mean they rejected theism or does it mean they were uninterested in bothering with a topic they consider absurd?
What they are rejecting is your attempt to engage in the discussion.
They just haven't met me :) Seriously - have they never spoken with a
> I have relatives who are like that.
>
> Are they not atheists? If not, what are they?
>
Christian?
See above.
According to wikipedia the Piraha do not believe in a supreme being
> And are the Paraha not atheists?
>
but they believe in spirits and they even claim to see them (when
outsiders can't see them)
So do New Agers. As long as they don't believe in gods they're atheists.
But let's assume there was an isolated person or persons that had
never had the thought occur to them that there was a creator or
anything like that. Yes, those persons would be atheists. But as
soon as they met someone and had a conversation with that person about
gods, they would lose their "atheism virginity".
All that would change is that they would:
1. dismiss theism as irrelevant, have no interest in discussing it and remain an atheist by default
2. engage in systematic analysis and reject whichever theist belief they analysed and deemed wrong or unconvincing and remain an atheist by default
3. engage in systematic analysis and reject god beliefs in favor of other superstitious beliefs likes spiritualism and remain an atheist by default
4. engage in systematic analysis and accept whichever theist belief they analysed and deemed wrong and become a theist
I explored a lot of different beliefs systems. Not just Christianity. Religious and non-religious.
I found the religious ones irrelevant for the most part and dismissed them since I didn't find them rational enough to deemed to be wrong.
Buddhism was the exception, likely because it's more of a philosophy than a religion and very coherent.
While there were certainly aspects of the philosophy I agreed with I rejected it for very specific reasons.
None of this changes the fact that they and I continue to be atheists by default and not because we "came to atheism" or because we "rejected theism".
We have come across no reason to change our default position.
The problem here is that you are treating atheism as though it's a world view or belief system which it isn't.
The term simply identifies a person who isn't a theist.
If theism disappeared everyone would be an atheist by default and we would no longer need this identifier to differentiate us.
So I'll acknowledge that a pure atheist virgin may exist somewhere,
but I certainly don't know any - and let's face it, this group is
populated by atheist sluts that have considered the claims of
Christianity nine ways to Sunday :)
LMAO!
No doubt but this group isn't the world ;-D
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 12:08:09 PM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 10, 4:20 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
> > I can fix that :)
>
> Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God
Had the current Piraha's greatgreatgrandparents heard of such an idea?
> > Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
> > I can fix that :)
>
> Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God
> otherwise they would just be people and not call themselves Atheists.
>
ever having heard of theism - example the Piraha, especially from a
few generations back.
2) There are atheists who refuse to call themselves atheist on the
basis that it is ridiculous to label oneself by what one doesn't
believe and that even if one wanted such a label, it would have to be
a mile long if there are a gazillion things one doesn't believe.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 4:29:11 PM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 9, 11:42 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
of God - nothing else.
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 4:46:23 PM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 10, 4:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
existence of gods and made a decision about it.
system. The central dogma is "There has never been a shred of
evidence to prove the existence of any god thing".
> The term simply identifies a person who isn't a theist.
>
> If theism disappeared everyone would be an atheist by default and we would
> no longer need this identifier to differentiate us.
>
> > So I'll acknowledge that a pure atheist virgin may exist somewhere,
> > but I certainly don't know any - and let's face it, this group is
> > populated by atheist sluts that have considered the claims of
> > Christianity nine ways to Sunday :)
>
> LMAO!
>
> No doubt but this group isn't the world ;-D
>
a Christian slut. I hope the atheists will still respect me in the
morning :)
friendhis@yahoo.com
<friendhis@yahoo.com>May 10, 2012, 4:57:42 PM5/10/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 10, 9:08 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 4:20 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
> > > I can fix that :)
>
> > Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God
>
> Had the current Piraha's greatgreatgrandparents heard of such an idea?
>
> > otherwise they would just be people and not call themselves Atheists.
>
> 1) There are/were atheists who lived to adulthood and died without
> ever having heard of theism - example the Piraha, especially from a
> few generations back.
What does that matter? I doubt that those people called themselves
> On May 10, 4:20 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
> > > I can fix that :)
>
> > Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God
>
> Had the current Piraha's greatgreatgrandparents heard of such an idea?
>
> > otherwise they would just be people and not call themselves Atheists.
>
> 1) There are/were atheists who lived to adulthood and died without
> ever having heard of theism - example the Piraha, especially from a
> few generations back.
"atheists".
The argument I am making is that a self identified atheist has heard
about god and has decided that the evidence for the existence of a god
is insufficient and has therefore decided that there is no god. And I
am saying that is a belief system.
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 10, 2012, 5:46:40 PM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:57 PM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 10, 9:08 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 4:20 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:> > Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God
>
> > > Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
> > > I can fix that :)
>
>
> Had the current Piraha's greatgreatgrandparents heard of such an idea?
>
> > otherwise they would just be people and not call themselves Atheists.
>
> 1) There are/were atheists who lived to adulthood and died without
> ever having heard of theism - example the Piraha, especially from a
> few generations back.
What does that matter? I doubt that those people called themselves
"atheists".
The argument I am making is that a self identified atheist has heard
about god and has decided that the evidence for the existence of a god
is insufficient and has therefore decided that there is no god. And I
am saying that is a belief system.
You cannot believe in a nothing and to use there is nothing to believe.
> 2) There are atheists who refuse to call themselves atheist on the
> basis that it is ridiculous to label oneself by what one doesn't
> believe and that even if one wanted such a label, it would have to be
> a mile long if there are a gazillion things one doesn't believe.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 10, 2012, 6:50:12 PM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 10, 4:24 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:04 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
<snipped>
That doesn't mean that internally they have never considered the> > They have to now - I'm asking them to :)
>
> Some of my relatives will simply look at you like an idiot and tell you to
> go away ;-D
existence of gods and made a decision about it.
It also doesn't mean they have so where does that leave us?
>
> Does that mean they rejected theism or does it mean they were uninterested
> in bothering with a topic they consider absurd?
>
> What they are rejecting is your attempt to engage in the discussion.
>
>
>
> > > I have relatives who are like that.
>
> > > Are they not atheists? If not, what are they?
>
> > They just haven't met me :) Seriously - have they never spoken with a
> > Christian?
>
> See above.
>
>
>
> > > And are the Paraha not atheists?
You keep ignoring this one. No answer?
Are the Paraha atheists or aren't they and were they atheists before the Christian missionary introduced them to the concept of gods (after which he became an atheist ;-D)
Not believing something because there isn't any evidence to support the claim isn't a belief system.
It's simply saying I don't believe you, your arguments are unconvincing, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence to support your god claims.
If it not believing something is a belief system then not collecting stamps is a hobby and bald is a hair color.
Does that make sense to you?
I guess by that reasoning that participating in this group had made me
> The term simply identifies a person who isn't a theist.
>
> If theism disappeared everyone would be an atheist by default and we would
> no longer need this identifier to differentiate us.
>
> > So I'll acknowledge that a pure atheist virgin may exist somewhere,
> > but I certainly don't know any - and let's face it, this group is
> > populated by atheist sluts that have considered the claims of
> > Christianity nine ways to Sunday :)
>
> LMAO!
>
> No doubt but this group isn't the world ;-D
>
a Christian slut. I hope the atheists will still respect me in the
morning :)
We're much more forgiving than Christians :-D
--
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 10, 2012, 6:54:38 PM5/10/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM, frie...@yahoo.com <frie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 10, 9:08 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:What does that matter? I doubt that those people called themselves
> On May 10, 4:20 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
> > > I can fix that :)
>
> > Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God
>
> Had the current Piraha's greatgreatgrandparents heard of such an idea?
>
> > otherwise they would just be people and not call themselves Atheists.
>
> 1) There are/were atheists who lived to adulthood and died without
> ever having heard of theism - example the Piraha, especially from a
> few generations back.
"atheists".
The argument I am making is that a self identified atheist has heard
about god and has decided that the evidence for the existence of a god
is insufficient and has therefore decided that there is no god. And I
am saying that is a belief system.
Well this is the first time in this thread you've referred to self-identified atheists. Previous to this you were only talking about atheists.
That may be the case with self-identified atheists, I don't know.
However, that doesn't mean that the Praha and my relatives aren't atheists since my point is that one doesn't have to self-identify as an atheist to be one.
The only requirement to being an atheist is to have no god beliefs, self-identification or not because it's the default position.
If you're not a theist you're an atheist.
> 2) There are atheists who refuse to call themselves atheist on the
> basis that it is ridiculous to label oneself by what one doesn't
> believe and that even if one wanted such a label, it would have to be
> a mile long if there are a gazillion things one doesn't believe.
Good point Ranjit. I know some who give that argument and they've got a point.
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>May 11, 2012, 9:01:48 AM5/11/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 10, 9:08 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:What does that matter? I doubt that those people called themselves
> On May 10, 4:20 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Can you introduce me to these atheists that have never heard of god?
> > > I can fix that :)
>
> > Atheist have all without exception have heard of the Theist idea of a God
>
> Had the current Piraha's greatgreatgrandparents heard of such an idea?
>
> > otherwise they would just be people and not call themselves Atheists.
>
> 1) There are/were atheists who lived to adulthood and died without
> ever having heard of theism - example the Piraha, especially from a
> few generations back.
"atheists".
The argument I am making is that a self identified atheist has heard
about god and has decided that the evidence for the existence of a god
is insufficient and has therefore decided that there is no god. And I
am saying that is a belief system.Well this is the first time in this thread you've referred to self-identified atheists. Previous to this you were only talking about atheists.That may be the case with self-identified atheists, I don't know.However, that doesn't mean that the Praha and my relatives aren't atheists since my point is that one doesn't have to self-identify as an atheist to be one.The only requirement to being an atheist is to have no god beliefs, self-identification or not because it's the default position.If you're not a theist you're an atheist.
no - if you're not a theist you are not an atheist. If you're not
a theist you can be a lot of other things.
You have belief's in the earth as being here. You have belief's
in the fact that the wind blows in your face.
To say you have no belief at all - or are an atheist - you have
belief that you exist. You are your own *god*.
thea
> 2) There are atheists who refuse to call themselves atheist on the
> basis that it is ridiculous to label oneself by what one doesn't
> believe and that even if one wanted such a label, it would have to be
> a mile long if there are a gazillion things one doesn't believe.Good point Ranjit. I know some who give that argument and they've got a point.--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 11, 2012, 9:22:13 AM5/11/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
I agree you can just be a nice or nasty human being and not have considered the religious side of life with any real need to make a decision. Atheism is however and actual decision after research that you can logically accept that a God/gods exist. It does not follow that is some sort of belief because that has to have substance.
> 2) There are atheists who refuse to call themselves atheist on the
> basis that it is ridiculous to label oneself by what one doesn't
> believe and that even if one wanted such a label, it would have to be
> a mile long if there are a gazillion things one doesn't believe.Good point Ranjit. I know some who give that argument and they've got a point.--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 11, 2012, 7:39:24 PM5/11/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Sure you can. You can have all kinds of belief but you're also an atheist since you don't have any god beliefs.
The question is simple.
Do you hold god beliefs? Yes : theist. No : atheist.
A theist has god beliefs and an atheist doesn't. It really is as simple as that.
Other beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>May 12, 2012, 1:12:05 AM5/12/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 12, 1:39 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:57 PM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com
Unger argues for the existence of an immaterial soul even though he is
an atheist.
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 1:45:07 AM5/12/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
is a small minority of self-proclaimed atheists who are not
rationalists. Not all atheists became atheists for rational reasons.
Some call themselves atheists because they became angry at their
church or religion in general. They seem to think that calling
themselves atheists is the worst thing they could call themselves and
hope it will get their god's attention and everything will be all
right. They're the ones most likely to jump back into theism. I am
skeptical of their positions.
....
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 3:39:50 AM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
I have met a great many atheists and I have never know one who went back to religion but probablly they were all the ones who actually did some research before choosing the title.
--
Ian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 4:43:56 AM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Exactly. And according to theists and irrational atheists Unger isn't an atheist because he doesn't follow what they falsely claim is the "atheist world view".
There is no such thing as an atheist world view.
Anyone who isn't a theist is an atheist by default whether they self-identify that way or not.
And atheists can hold all sorts of *other* superstitious beliefs and remain atheists. As long as their superstitions don't include god beliefs they remain atheists by default.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 4:57:32 AM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Exactly.
There
is a small minority of self-proclaimed atheists who are not
rationalists. Not all atheists became atheists for rational reasons.
Exactly.
Some call themselves atheists because they became angry at their
church or religion in general. They seem to think that calling
themselves atheists is the worst thing they could call themselves and
hope it will get their god's attention and everything will be all
right. They're the ones most likely to jump back into theism.
No doubt.
I am
skeptical of their positions.
I am also skeptical of the irrational position that a "true" atheist must "come to atheism" through reason.
This is viewing atheism from a theist mind set. It implies that atheism is a world view and has a belief system.
It also excludes millions of implicit atheists who hold no god beliefs because they weren't indoctrinated into religion or never accepted the indoctrination.
Many don't self-identify as atheists but the irrational, dogmatic, doctrinaire atheist will claim that they are not "true atheists" because they didn't "come to atheism" through reason.
No-one "comes to atheism".
In many cases people reject theism, *some* do so because they are rationalists and *some* do so for other reasons like adopting other superstitions.
This makes them *all* atheists by default no matter what their reason for rejecting theism was.
*Some* never reject theism but remain in the default atheist position because they don't care to even consider theism.
--
TLC
<tlc.terence@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 5:47:57 AM5/12/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Trance,
"And atheists can hold all sorts of *other* superstitious beliefs and
remain atheists"
Now, which stupid person really thinks that? Why Trance!
Do you really think modern atheists are stuck in the 16th century and
will believe in spirits and other Woo-Woo nonsense based on
superstitious crap? It will be nice one day to see if you ever grow
up!
OK, what sort of *other* superstitious beliefs do atheists have?
Modern atheism is not simply a disbelief in story book theist
creatures created in cultures, it's a vangarde against all
superstition, most of which is a product of theism.
On May 12, 9:43 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
"And atheists can hold all sorts of *other* superstitious beliefs and
remain atheists"
Do you really think modern atheists are stuck in the 16th century and
will believe in spirits and other Woo-Woo nonsense based on
superstitious crap? It will be nice one day to see if you ever grow
up!
OK, what sort of *other* superstitious beliefs do atheists have?
Modern atheism is not simply a disbelief in story book theist
creatures created in cultures, it's a vangarde against all
superstition, most of which is a product of theism.
On May 12, 9:43 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
TLC
<tlc.terence@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 6:00:04 AM5/12/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Trance,
"I am also skeptical of the irrational position that a "true" atheist
must "come to atheism" through reason."
What you're saying is atheism just arrived without atheists knowing
the effects on their lives of theism. In, that case why call oneself
an atheist?
By the way, why do you separate atheists with calling some "true"
atheist ? At times you read like a religious tract!
On May 12, 9:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
"I am also skeptical of the irrational position that a "true" atheist
must "come to atheism" through reason."
the effects on their lives of theism. In, that case why call oneself
an atheist?
By the way, why do you separate atheists with calling some "true"
atheist ? At times you read like a religious tract!
On May 12, 9:57 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 6:59:27 AM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
An Atheist title is what people decide fits their decision, they may later because more active, if that's the word for the so called activities but they are just non believes in gods/s until they decide if ever that they made a mistake and what to change.
--
Ian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 1:23:55 PM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
I wonder what answer God will someday give to this one.
thea
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 1:30:40 PM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
He won't Thea and you know why cause he can only speak to you brain not mine.
--
"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony
"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll
http://newatheism.blogspot.com/
Freethinkers and atheists Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Ian
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 2:09:47 PM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
So Sorry, man, but haven't you heard:
*Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is King of King
and Lord of Lords.*
No one will get out of this. We are all in this together - where we will say
that Jesus is IT.
thea
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 12, 2012, 6:23:57 PM5/12/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
This knee will not bow to a myth Thea.
Ian
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>May 12, 2012, 7:00:33 PM5/12/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 12, 2:09 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So Sorry, man, but haven't you heard:
> *Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is King of
> King and Lord of Lords.*
>
... claims someone other than Jesus. Did Jesus himself say "I am king
> So Sorry, man, but haven't you heard:
> *Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is King of
> King and Lord of Lords.*
>
of kings and lord of lords*?
>
> No one will get out of this. We are all in this together - where we will
> say that Jesus is IT.
> thea
>
So sorry, dame, but haven't you heard:
> No one will get out of this. We are all in this together - where we will
> say that Jesus is IT.
> thea
>
I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving
or unmoving, that can exist without me” - Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita
10.39
Can you get out of this? Will you say that Krishna is IT?
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>May 13, 2012, 8:13:03 AM5/13/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Krishna is right for his own sake.
But you do the same thing. You are a creator of your own children.
You did it.
The woman will not be held responsible for abortion.
You men are the creators of life, because the sperm moves
of its own volition. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Therefore, you men are responsible for the health and welfare
of YOUR offspring.
You are the same as this Krishna.
You do the same thing to make a child as he did.
You are no different.
In other words, he came to understand that man - is
the maker of his children.
thea
Rupert
<rupertmccallum@yahoo.com>May 13, 2012, 12:33:44 PM5/13/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 4:49 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 3:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:> You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> There are atheists who follow a creed. Look up "religious atheism".
> There might even be some atheists who follow a creed and
> presumptuously call their creed Atheism. Be that as it may, "Atheism
> offers a form of morality that is not Bible morality" is like saying
> "A-genie-ism offers a form of morality that is not Koran morality."
>
I did look up "religious atheism" and couldn't find anything. Do you
mean Christian atheism?
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>May 13, 2012, 1:15:20 PM5/13/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sunday, May 13, 2012 5:13:03 AM UTC-7, thea wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM, ranjit_...@yahoo.com <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On May 12, 2:09 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:... claims someone other than Jesus. Did Jesus himself say "I am king
> So Sorry, man, but haven't you heard:
> *Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is King of
> King and Lord of Lords.*
>
of kings and lord of lords*?
>So sorry, dame, but haven't you heard:
> No one will get out of this. We are all in this together - where we will
> say that Jesus is IT.
> thea
>
I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving
or unmoving, that can exist without me” - Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita
10.39
Can you get out of this? Will you say that Krishna is IT?
Krishna is right for his own sake.
But you do the same thing. You are a creator of your own children.
You did it.
The woman will not be held responsible for abortion.
You men are the creators of life, because the sperm moves
of its own volition. (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Therefore, you men are responsible for the health and welfare
of YOUR offspring.
Hilarious that you constantly bleat about how awful men are and how religious leaders are trying to brainwash us, yet you trot out a Catholic male religious leader to "prove" that God is greater than Krishna.
I'm curious, how do you figure that men are responsible for abortions because sperm "moves on its own volition"? If they move of their own volition, how can the man be blamed? In the real world, unless it is rape by the man or a deception by the woman (e.g. saying she took birth control when she didn't), both father and mother share equal responsibility for a pregnancy.
Second, how could Saint Thomas Aquinas say anything about sperm when he lived long before we knew sperm exists?
You're a liar, thea. A bald-faced liar.
You are the same as this Krishna.
You do the same thing to make a child as he did.
You are no different.
In other words, he came to understand that man - is
the maker of his children.
thea
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 13, 2012, 3:16:20 PM5/13/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 4:05 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
>
> > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality, but
> > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> still have the law in their hearts,
Observer
Of what value is the ranting of one or more
sociopathological ,superstitious , and mentally insolvent, and
uninformed primitives, claiming the name Paul?
You are hereby challenged to provide a case for the veracity of the ,
myths, folk lore, and legends of the , so called" New testament" in
accordance with logic, reason, scientific method, a reasonable
reliance on the produce thereof, and of course the rules of critical
thinking.
I opine ; the NT is not but sadomasochism , misanthropy, and
disinformation rooted in superstitious, sociopolitically, induced ,
meaninglessness and ,nonsense, the veracity of which has not and can
not be substantiated .
>
> The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> I (or why do others) do wrong.
Observer
Right and wrong are are not other than, that which in accordance with
the cognitive bias of the observer , judge-mentalist, (label maker)
conditions which are perceived to be either threatening to to or
sportive of safety and succor for self and extensions of self-hood ,
as in family, friends and allies, his/her community, nation the
alliances thereof , and a misguided belief that his / her concept of a
particular (fabricated) god thing wishes for certain fulfillment of
imaginary "divine" behavioral requisites.
>
> The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
> devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
>
> While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral
Observer
The , so called "bible" is consistent with amorality, immorality, the
rejection of the tools of the cognoscente (referenced above) and lacks
the necessities to be adjudged *truth bearing*.
-
> "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
Observer
The answer lies both in our genes, our experience and the societal
pressures of consensus , all be such (consensus) not necessarily
entirely rational or even of great utility.
What is needed is a knowledge based , rational empathy to eliminate or
at least reduce the damage done by beliefs that right and wrong are
fixed according to failed ideologies represented in religion/
superstitious nonsense.
>
> But, the Christian knows that they can't go on blaming the devil for
> their bad behavior and the atheist runs into a wall because soon there
> is nothing that is immoral in their eyes.
Observer
Such is belief and not what can rationally be called knowledge.
Never have any of the concocted "supernatural "entities ever been
shown to be actual.
Should you disagree, then, by all means, provide a case for such
within the bounds of reason, logic, scientific method and critical
thinking.
Otherwise all reference thereto must be relegated to the dung heap of
superstitious nonsense and meaninglessness.
We all have one choice
> (IMO), to cry out "God, have mercy on me!" and then rest in that mercy
> and grace that is so freely given.
Observer
Wrong , we have many choices the best of which can be isolated by the
use of reason, logic, scientific method (a reasonable reliance on the
produce thereof), and the precise rules of critical thought.
If Christianity , a failed and fallacious, and meaningless ideology,
is the answer , what is the question?
Psychonomist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM, friend...@yahoo.com <friend...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > Neither atheism nor theism lead to immorality. And immorality does
> > > not lead to either one.
>
> > > According to my belief system, eating a piece of fruit brought
> > > immorality into the human race. You may disagree about where it came
> > > from but there is little doubt that immorality exists in many forms in
> > > this world.
>
> > > What we seek as humans is a way to understand immorality and to find a
> > > "cure" for it.
>
> > > Atheism and Christianity both offer answers.
>
> > > I think this might be the author's main point - that atheism offers a
> > > different view of immorality and that for some people, that alternate
> > > view is what makes unbelief more attractive to them (rather than the
> > > claim that logic and reason is driving the lack of belief).
>
> > > I think that is probably true for some atheists but definitely not
> > > all.
>
> > > On May 5, 8:13 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Could it be that their opposition to religious faith has more to do
> > > > with passion than reason? What if, in the end, evidence has little to
> > > > do with how atheists arrive at their anti-faith? That is precisely the
> > > > claim in this book. Atheism is not at all a consequence of
> > > > intellectual doubts. These are mere symptoms of the root cause--moral
> > > > rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but
> > > > obedience.
>
> > > > The psalmist declares, "The fool says in his heart there is no
> > > > God" (Ps. 14:1), and in the book of Romans, Paul makes it clear that
> > > > lack of evidence is not the atheist's problem. The Making of an
> > > > Atheist confirms these biblical truths and describes the moral and
> > > > psychological dynamics involved in the abandonment of faith.
>
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Atheist-Immorality-Unbelief/dp/08024...
>
> > > > What is the first recorded instance of a theist claiming a nexus
> > > > between atheism and immorality? That is, what was the first time that
> > > > any theist said either that atheism leads to immorality or that
> > > > immorality leads to atheism? If anyone knows, that is.
>
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > Ian
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>May 13, 2012, 3:24:16 PM5/13/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 6, 5:14 pm, "friend...@yahoo.com" <friend...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 4:37 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:05:49 PM UTC-7, frie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality,
> > > but
> > > > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> > > Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> > > still have the law in their hearts,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, May 6, 2012 4:05:49 PM UTC-7, frie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 6, 12:08 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > You say Atheism offer a form of morality that is not bible mortality,
> > > but
> > > > atheists do not follow a creed so it a human idea of right and wrong,
>
> > > Paul said that humans that do not know the "law" (the Mosaic Law)
> > > still have the law in their hearts,
>
> > > The problem is that whether it is the Mosaic law or the law in our
> > > hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> > > atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> > > own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> > > I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> > > hearts, we can never seem to live up to it. So we (Christians and
> > > atheists) look for a way to explain why we are not living up to our
> > > own understanding of right and wrong - we keep asking ourselves why do
> > > I (or why do others) do wrong.
>
> > > The Christian answer is often a bit like old Flip Wilson bit - "the
> > > devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
>
> > > While the atheist response is usually to re-define what is immoral -
> > > devil made me do it!" (If you're to young to remember that...
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLifea3NHQ
>
> > > "who is to say that what I am doing is wrong".
>
> > That is not the usual atheist response. Stop misrepresenting us.
>
>
> Isn't it? The usual exchange is between Christians and atheists. The
> Christian claims the bible as a moral authority in the case of
> something like sexual behavior and the atheist says that the bible has
> no such authority.
Observer
The , so called "bible" has the same authority in all things as has
the veracity of its texts which has not and can not be substantiated.
Unsubstantiated = meaninglessness = no authority in any matter
Psychonomist
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > But, the Christian knows that they can't go on blaming the devil for
> > > their bad behavior and the atheist runs into a wall because soon there
> > > (IMO), to cry out "God, have mercy on me!" and then rest in that mercy
> > > and grace that is so freely given.
>
> > > and grace that is so freely given.
>
LL
<llpens3601@gmail.com>May 13, 2012, 3:33:44 PM5/13/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
On May 13, 10:15 am, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 5:13:03 AM UTC-7, thea wrote:
>
>
> I'm curious, how do you figure that men are responsible for abortions
> because sperm "moves on its own volition"? If they move of their own
> volition, how can the man be blamed? In the real world, unless it is rape
> by the man or a deception by the woman (e.g. saying she took birth control
> when she didn't), both father and mother share equal responsibility for a
> pregnancy.
LL. Actually, they are both legally and morally responsible even
> I'm curious, how do you figure that men are responsible for abortions
> because sperm "moves on its own volition"? If they move of their own
> volition, how can the man be blamed? In the real world, unless it is rape
> by the man or a deception by the woman (e.g. saying she took birth control
> when she didn't), both father and mother share equal responsibility for a
> pregnancy.
under those scenarios.
.......
>
> Second, how could Saint Thomas Aquinas say anything about sperm when he
> lived long before we knew sperm exists?
>
> You're a liar, thea. A bald-faced liar.
>
>
>
> > You are the same as this Krishna.
> > You do the same thing to make a child as he did.
> > You are no different.
> > In other words, he came to understand that man - is
> > the maker of his children.
> > thea
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> Second, how could Saint Thomas Aquinas say anything about sperm when he
> lived long before we knew sperm exists?
>
> You're a liar, thea. A bald-faced liar.
>
>
>
> > You are the same as this Krishna.
> > You do the same thing to make a child as he did.
> > You are no different.
> > In other words, he came to understand that man - is
> > the maker of his children.
> > thea
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Steve in Virginia
<resurgam167@yahoo.com>May 13, 2012, 5:03:52 PM5/13/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Are you for real??!! Thomas Aquinas lived in the mid-13th century and
had absolutely no knowledge of the proper workings of the human
physiology or biology. They thought disease was the product of evil
humors or god's retribution, and mice spontaneously generated from
damp hay.
What a crock!
Steve
On May 13, 8:13 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
had absolutely no knowledge of the proper workings of the human
physiology or biology. They thought disease was the product of evil
humors or god's retribution, and mice spontaneously generated from
damp hay.
What a crock!
Steve
On May 13, 8:13 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
Neil Kelsey
<neil.m.kelsey@gmail.com>May 13, 2012, 5:42:04 PM5/13/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
Point taken.
.......
>
> Second, how could Saint Thomas Aquinas say anything about sperm when he
> lived long before we knew sperm exists?
>
> You're a liar, thea. A bald-faced liar.
>
>
>
> > You are the same as this Krishna.
> > You do the same thing to make a child as he did.
> > You are no different.
> > In other words, he came to understand that man - is
> > the maker of his children.
> > thea
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>May 13, 2012, 6:00:29 PM5/13/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Steve in Virginia <resur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you for real??!! Thomas Aquinas lived in the mid-13th century and
had absolutely no knowledge of the proper workings of the human
physiology or biology. They thought disease was the product of evil
humors or god's retribution,
You haven't heard Thea's assessment of why people died in 9/11? Or why the Japanese earthquake occurred?
My, my Steve you've been seriously missing out.
and mice spontaneously generated from
damp hay.
She hasn't said that one ... yet.
Steve in Virginia
<resurgam167@yahoo.com>May 13, 2012, 10:43:51 PM5/13/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
The mice and hay thing is from an old Biology book I used in college.
Work has been a bit hectic lately and while recuperating I haven't had
a chance to participate here as much as I'd like.
But please, don't leave me in suspense.
What was the cause of all those people dying on 9/11?
And I can't frakkin' wait to hear about the earthquakes. I'm gonna go
out on a limb here and assume it doesn't have a damn thing to do with
plate tectonics and fault slippage.
Steve
On May 13, 6:00 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Work has been a bit hectic lately and while recuperating I haven't had
a chance to participate here as much as I'd like.
But please, don't leave me in suspense.
What was the cause of all those people dying on 9/11?
And I can't frakkin' wait to hear about the earthquakes. I'm gonna go
out on a limb here and assume it doesn't have a damn thing to do with
plate tectonics and fault slippage.
Steve
On May 13, 6:00 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Duke of Omnium
<duke.of.omnium@gmail.com>May 14, 2012, 1:22:26 AM5/14/12
to Atheism vs Christianity
Aquinas believed in homunculi (look it up). In fact, most of the RC
(and consequently, christian) reproductive morality comes from the
belief that a woman furnishes nothing more than a convenient garden
for a sperm to grow.
Leeuwenhoek was firmly condemned by the RCC and others for first
demonstrating that a sperm cell wasn't a baby. They also didn't like
the way he obtained his sample (see "onanism").
On May 13, 5:13 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
(and consequently, christian) reproductive morality comes from the
belief that a woman furnishes nothing more than a convenient garden
for a sperm to grow.
Leeuwenhoek was firmly condemned by the RCC and others for first
demonstrating that a sperm cell wasn't a baby. They also didn't like
the way he obtained his sample (see "onanism").
On May 13, 5:13 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
Ian Betts
<ianbetts84@gmail.com>May 14, 2012, 3:05:25 AM5/14/12
to atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Steve in Virginia <resur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The mice and hay thing is from an old Biology book I used in college.
Work has been a bit hectic lately and while recuperating I haven't had
a chance to participate here as much as I'd like.
But please, don't leave me in suspense.
What was the cause of all those people dying on 9/11?
And I can't frakkin' wait to hear about the earthquakes. I'm gonna go
out on a limb here and assume it doesn't have a damn thing to do with
plate tectonics and fault slippage.
Steve
No its all to do with if God had a good breakfast or a bad nights sleep. You must know he can have a real temper tantrum from time to time.
Ian
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages