"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?" - Toward an Atheist Reformation
fasgnadh
- Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
"Last Friday, a New York Times headline declared:
"Atheists Debate How Pushy to Be." This ongoing
debate among atheists - "Just how much should
we confront the religious?" - is nowhere near resolution.
Last year when I visited Minnesota to spend the
winter holidays with my family, I spoke with a
Christian friend about my budding efforts as
an atheist promoting religious tolerance and
interfaith work. She too was excited about the
idea of bringing people together around shared
values in spite of religious differences, but
near the end of our conversation she asked me
a pointed question:
"I'm a little confused. Isn't part of being
an atheist trying to talk people out of their faith?"
She's not the first to ask me that. In fact, it's
one of the questions I get most often. It seems
that because many vocal atheists cite "the end
of faith" as their goal, atheism is often
perceived as being actively anti-religious
to the point of being almost evangelical.
Reza Aslan lays the case out well:
"There is, as has often been noted, something
peculiarly evangelistic about what has been
termed the new atheist movement ... It is no
exaggeration to describe the movement popularized
by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett,
Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new
and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism -
- an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with
religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling:
the conviction that they are in sole possession
of truth (scientific or otherwise), the troubling
lack of tolerance for the views of their critics
(Dawkins has compared creationists to Holocaust
deniers), the insistence on a literalist reading
of scripture (more literalist, in fact, than one
finds among most religious fundamentalists),
the simplistic reductionism of the religious
phenomenon, and, perhaps most bizarrely, their
overwhelming sense of siege: the belief that
they have been oppressed and marginalized by
Western societies and are just not going to
take it anymore."
"I'm not sure I'm in full agreement with Aslan.
In my first piece for Huffington Post Religion,
I noted the undeniable reality that atheists do
in fact face discrimination in America. But his
critique of the zealous nature of "new atheism"
is difficult to deny. When a large and vocal
number of atheists say that their number one
goal is convincing people to abandon their faith,
it comes as no surprise that our community is
construed as extreme and aggressive.
This is a major problem for the nonreligious
because it limits our reach. In the words of
Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
the truth; that those other people who believe
in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
It does not get our message across. It condemns
us to permanent minority status."
The reason I do interfaith work is because I
want to erode this kind of "Us vs. Them" thinking.
The day before the New York Times raised the issue,
I spoke to the Secular Student Alliance at Yale
University about my work and addressed the
question of whether the nonreligious should
engage in interfaith work. Inevitably, our
group conversation turned to the subject of
"evangelical atheism" and whether this was
an appropriate description of tactics applied
by "new atheists."
"I may lose all of my credibility for saying
this," I said with a chuckle, "but I have zero
interest in talking people out of their religious
beliefs. The only religious beliefs I take issue
with are ones that infringe on individual freedoms -
- for example, when someone's religious belief
informs their conviction that I, as a queer person,
should not be free to marry whoever I choose.
But their belief in God, when it does not
contribute to actions that inhibit my liberty,
is of no concern to me."
All the more, I added, I actually celebrate
religious beliefs that motivate people to
engage in social justice work. Historical
figures like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Thich Nhat Hanh, Rabbi
Abraham Joshua Heschel and Monsignor Oscar
Romero cited their faith as the primary
impetus for their social justice work and
launched their efforts through interfaith
coalitions. Because of their efforts and
the efforts of others like them, I actually
believe that the world would suffer a
serious loss if religion disappeared.
To my delight, many students in the room
expressed their agreement.
The nonreligious have gained a lot of
traction due to the voices of "new atheism,"
but I believe that we are at a crossroads:
We have come to a point where we can continue
to express our legitimate frustrations in a
way that alienates the religious, or we can
look inward to find a comfort in our own
convictions that will enable us to begin
the courageous and important work of looking
outward to respectfully engage with others.
I am encouraged by a new generation of
humanists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics,
freethinkers and others who wish to operate
in a way that is constructive instead of
deconstructive. We are led by people like
Lucy Gubbins, an atheist who co-founded the
University of Oregon's Alliance of Happy
Atheists, who is working to both create
secular community and identify opportunities
for collaboration with the religious.
Gubbins and those like her are more concerned
with these positive efforts than with
striving to de-convert the religious.
And our numbers are growing every day -
several Yale students approached me after
our discussion to ask how they could get
involved in interfaith work.
A few days before my talk at Yale, I met
with students from Tufts University's
Freethought Society, which has been
actively working to get a Humanist
Chaplain for several years now.
Inside Higher Ed wrote an article on their
efforts last year that highlighted the need
for nonreligious communities. In the article,
Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at
Harvard University, said, "A lot of
students come to campus knowing they're
not religious, but also not knowing what
they do believe. [Humanist communities
can] help them learn more about the
positive aspects of their identity,
not just what they don't believe in."
It's just a hypothesis, but I wonder
if fewer nonreligious people would
actively try to dismantle religious
communities if we had a more coherent
community of our own. Perhaps if we
spend less energy negatively "evangelizing,"
we'll find ourselves well positioned to
reach out in ways that build bridges
instead of tearing them down.
"How pushy should we be, then?" We're
asking the wrong question. Instead,
let's ask ourselves: What are we pushing for?
Is our top priority trying to do away
with religion altogether, or is it
trying to make the world a better place?
If it is the latter, then we must change
our approach, reach out to religious
liberals and moderates and work together.
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Sir Frederick Martin
try abject honesty
Such as :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurophilosophy
and :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology
Brain processes produce needs that are mandatory,
as well as "Wants" that are arbitrary, and 'religious
experiences'. A common 'religious experience' is the
experience of 'chills' when hearing really good music,
or a 'sense of awe' when first seeing the Grand Canyon.
It is also of interest to understand all qualia as religious
experience. All of these are common, non magical,
brain processes and functions.
Eunometic
> "Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
> - Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
>
> "Last Friday, a New York Times headline declared:
> "Atheists Debate How Pushy to Be." This ongoing
> debate among atheists - "Just how much should
> we confront the religious?" - is nowhere near resolution.
>
There are plenty of relgious nuts adhering to all sorts of 'religious
truths' out there. You need to be kept in check, for everyones good.
Remember when they forced Gallileo to recant the heliocentric system.
Or boiled people who read banned books?
Or believed women could be 'whitches' (both Muslims and Christian
nuts)
Or who rekon its OK to take a 6 year old as bride and have sex with
her, like Mohamed did. This still happens.
Or kill unbelievers or people who don't believe in their superstition.
Or not accept blood transfusions for their haemoraging children
Or those that want to believe that woman was made from a rib.
Relgious nuts like you are both silly and dangerous.
Jenny6833A
> "Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
> - Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
<snip>
> In my first piece for Huffington Post Religion,
> I noted the undeniable reality that atheists do
> in fact face discrimination in America. But his
> critique of the zealous nature of "new atheism"
> is difficult to deny. When a large and vocal
> number of atheists say that their number one
> goal is convincing people to abandon their faith,
> it comes as no surprise that our community is
> construed as extreme and aggressive.
When all members of all religions stop trying to convince people to
adopt their faith, I promise to stop explaining why their faith is
silly, counterproductive, and false.
<snip>
:-)
Jenny
(that's a promise I don't expect I'll ever need to keep)
livvy
Gosh, Jenny.....perhaps in your environment, all members of all
religions are trying to convince people to adopt their faith.
Not clear of exactly where you are, but if you need help to get out,
call someone, dial 911. Yikes. Perhaps "all members.., etc" are
doing so, only because you are paying attention to, and focusing only
on, what those "all members...etc" are saying. Perhaps you
should step back and, oh, I dunno, live a life, open your eyes;
your passion is clear, don't make it the only thing. That's sad.
DVH
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:4D2FA575...@yahoo.com.au...
> Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
> skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
> Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
> the truth; that those other people who believe
> in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
> if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
> if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
> It does not get our message across. It condemns
> us to permanent minority status."
As long as an atheist feels the need to "get a message across" he's barking
up the wrong tree.
Jefferson: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
Christopher A. Lee
>
>"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:4D2FA575...@yahoo.com.au...
>
>> Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
>> skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
>> Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
>> the truth; that those other people who believe
>> in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
>> if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
>> if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
>> It does not get our message across. It condemns
>> us to permanent minority status."
>
>As long as an atheist feels the need to "get a message across" he's barking
>up the wrong tree.
The only message we try to get across, is in response to your bullying
and lies.
>Jefferson: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
>gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
If only the fundamentalists and evangelicals could take that advice.
We wouldn't give a flying fuck what you believe if you kept it inside
your religion.
It's your business.
But you don't.
You make it our business when you impose it and when you show bigotry
and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
kids.
People REACT to that.
Show some honesty and stop pretending.
DVH
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:9bj0j696ekjl1pkh9...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:28:01 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:4D2FA575...@yahoo.com.au...
>>
>>> Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
>>> skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
>>> Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
>>> the truth; that those other people who believe
>>> in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
>>> if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
>>> if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
>>> It does not get our message across. It condemns
>>> us to permanent minority status."
>>
>>As long as an atheist feels the need to "get a message across" he's
>>barking
>>up the wrong tree.
>
> The only message we try to get across, is in response to your bullying
> and lies.
>
>>Jefferson: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
>>gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
>
> If only the fundamentalists and evangelicals could take that advice.
>
> We wouldn't give a flying fuck what you believe if you kept it inside
> your religion.
You do walk into traps of your own making.
What religion is my religion?
>
> It's your business.
>
> But you don't.
>
> You make it our business when you impose it
Show where I've imposed religion...
> and when you show bigotry
> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>
> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
> kids.
Show where I've done that...
Christopher A. Lee
You lie yet again.
>What religion is my religion?
Irrelevant.
Just keep your bullshit to yourself and there will be no reaction.
>>
>> It's your business.
>>
>> But you don't.
>>
>> You make it our business when you impose it
>
>Show where I've imposed religion...
More deliberate "misunderstanding".
It's a standard tactic from a bullshitting religionist.
>> and when you show bigotry
>> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>>
>> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
>> kids.
>
>Show where I've done that...
Idiot.
>>
>> People REACT to that.
>>
>> Show some honesty and stop pretending.
One day you might.
DVH
Well that's a charming sentiment, but unfortunately it's a free-ish world.
If what I say provokes a "reaction", should I be in the slightest
interested?
>
>>>
>>> It's your business.
>>>
>>> But you don't.
>>>
>>> You make it our business when you impose it
>>
>>Show where I've imposed religion...
>
> More deliberate "misunderstanding".
It's just that you make all these accusations. You can't blame me for
looking askance when you siggest I'm going round "imposing" religion.
>
> It's a standard tactic from a bullshitting religionist.
Which religion are you referring to?
>
>>> and when you show bigotry
>>> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>>>
>>> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
>>> kids.
>>
>>Show where I've done that...
>
> Idiot.
So you can't.
>
>>>
>>> People REACT to that.
>>>
>>> Show some honesty and stop pretending.
>
> One day you might.
Are you trying to convert me to some cult? I warn you, I'm not easily
convinced but if there's money in it...
Christopher A. Lee
So on your planett here is no creationism or bigotry and
discriminatioin against atheists?
What mzakes you so dishonest?
DVH
I'm sure there is.
But so what?
>
> What mzakes you so dishonest?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's your business.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> You make it our business when you impose it
>>>>
>>>>Show where I've imposed religion...
>>>
>>> More deliberate "misunderstanding".
>>
>>It's just that you make all these accusations. You can't blame me for
>>looking askance when you siggest I'm going round "imposing" religion.
>>
>>>
>>> It's a standard tactic from a bullshitting religionist.
>>
>>Which religion are you referring to?
No answer?
>>
>>>
>>>>> and when you show bigotry
>>>>> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
>>>>> kids.
>>>>
>>>>Show where I've done that...
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>>
>>So you can't.
And you still can't?
Christopher A. Lee
So we REACT, imbecile.
Stop pretending.
>>
>> What mzakes you so dishonest?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's your business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You make it our business when you impose it
>>>>>
>>>>>Show where I've imposed religion...
>>>>
>>>> More deliberate "misunderstanding".
>>>
>>>It's just that you make all these accusations. You can't blame me for
>>>looking askance when you siggest I'm going round "imposing" religion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a standard tactic from a bullshitting religionist.
>>>
>>>Which religion are you referring to?
>
>No answer?
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH ONE, IMCBECILE.
But then you knew that and are just trolling.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> and when you show bigotry
>>>>>> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
>>>>>> kids.
>>>>>
>>>>>Show where I've done that...
>>>>
>>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>>So you can't.
>
>And you still can't?
Why are you so dishonest?
Zinnic
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:28:01 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
Seems to me that you are over-reacting to his plea (as a fellow
atheist) for other atheists not to over-react to well meaning
theists.
You are correct in that atheists are often put in the position of
either speaking up or tacitly accepting criticisms of their lack of
belief. I publicly declared my atheism when 15 years old and my
experience is that most discussions with theists originated in their
attempts to impose their beliefs on me. I do not recall an instance in
my long life in which I initiated the question of their theistic
beliefs.
Zinnic
DVH
"Zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:bd0e2649-978f-4041...@u3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
That may be cultural. Are you US? In Britain, where people allegedly believe
it's rude to talk about politics or religion, the topic is rarely raised.
Atheism is probably more common here, from what I gather.
In Europe, weddings and funerals pass without injury to atheists present.
All that is notwithstanding certain family environments where adherence
remains particularly important.
>I publicly declared my atheism when 15 years old and my
> experience is that most discussions with theists originated in their
> attempts to impose their beliefs on me. I do not recall an instance in
> my long life in which I initiated the question of their theistic
> beliefs.
I change the subject if I'm evangelised, which is rarely.
Miles Evans
> "Evangelical Atheists:'
Doesn't exist.
No need to go any further.
Conan the bacterium
<>
> "Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
You are referring, I assume, to those atheists
who show up on your front porch and want
to explain their views to you? The ones which
leave pamphlets stuck in the door when you
aren't home? The ones who approach you
on the street corner and ask "Brother, do
you know Ingersoll?" The atheists who
are forever shamelessly invoking Russell
and Carnap and Hume when opening
a town meeting? The atheists who
try to out-atheist their opponents in
television political ads?
Those pushy atheists?
Yeah, you're right. They're as
annoying as hell.
conan
Zinnic
> "Zinnic" <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote in message
I guess you're a Brit? I am an expatriate. More than half my life in
the USA. I can conceive of an avowed atheist being elected to public
office in the UK and Europe but not here in the US. Probably more self-
confessed atheists over there than here, where speaking up is much
more likely to be disadvantageous socially, politically and
economically.
Zinnic
DVH
> > Seems to me that you are over-reacting to his plea (as a fellow
> > atheist) for other atheists not to over-react to well meaning
> > theists.
> > You are correct in that atheists are often put in the position of
> > either speaking up or tacitly accepting criticisms of their lack of
> > belief.
>
> That may be cultural. Are you US? In Britain, where people allegedly
> believe
> it's rude to talk about politics or religion, the topic is rarely raised.
>
> Atheism is probably more common here, from what I gather.
>
> In Europe, weddings and funerals pass without injury to atheists present.
>
> All that is notwithstanding certain family environments where adherence
> remains particularly important.
>
> >I publicly declared my atheism when 15 years old and my
> > experience is that most discussions with theists originated in their
> > attempts to impose their beliefs on me. I do not recall an instance in
> > my long life in which I initiated the question of their theistic
> > beliefs.
>
> I change the subject if I'm evangelised, which is rarely.
> I guess you're a Brit? I am an expatriate. More than half my life in
> the USA. I can conceive of an avowed atheist being elected to public
> office in the UK and Europe but not here in the US.
We have one leading the opposition party at the moment. But whether he gets
elected is another matter.
As for Brussels and the EU, it's probably an advantage to positively declare
your atheism.
A Catholic guy called Rocco Buttiglione was nominated for the Justice and
Home Affairs post, and because parliament believed he would bring religion
into politics, they wouldn't accept him. It caused a fuss.
It may or may not surprise you, but the reaction of an Italian minister at
the time was "This decision shows the real face of Europe, a face which we
don't like. It's fundamentalist, which is absolutely not on".
> Probably more self-
> confessed atheists over there than here, where speaking up is much
> more likely to be disadvantageous socially, politically and
> economically.
Yes, that's how I understand it. Except I suppose people in some blue states
and metros wouldn't care.
fasgnadh
> On Jan 14, 12:23 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
>> - Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
>>
>>"Last Friday, a New York Times headline declared:
>>"Atheists Debate How Pushy to Be." This ongoing
>>debate among atheists - "Just how much should
>>we confront the religious?" - is nowhere near resolution.
And given the incomprehending idiocy of atheists it
seems we could be waiting a VERY long time for them
to resolve their issues;
> There are plenty of relgious nuts adhering to all sorts of 'religious
> truths' out there.
You seem to have missed the point completely, this article
is about ATHEISTS, don't you even understand the difference? B^D
Next time, why don't you try READING and understanding rather than
SNIPPING and running away from the issue:
<unsnip>
>> Last year when I visited Minnesota to spend the
>> winter holidays with my family, I spoke with a
>> Christian friend about my budding efforts as
>> an atheist promoting religious tolerance and
>> interfaith work. She too was excited about the
>> idea of bringing people together around shared
>> values in spite of religious differences, but
>> near the end of our conversation she asked me
>> a pointed question:
>> "I'm a little confused. Isn't part of being
>> an atheist trying to talk people out of their faith?"
Eunometic seems to think so. In their arrogance,
militant atheists want to tell other people what
to think and believe, just like other fundies do.
At the extremes this takes the form of anti-theist hatred,
also well supported in alt.atheism;
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
# Message-ID: <p8mrb5lvaf0cj5bp1...@4ax.com>
# Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
#
# We kill theists and shit down their throats
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
Not satisfied with murder, the atheist's 'Warlord'(sic)
advocates GENOCIDE, th murder of 1,600,000,000 men
women and children because of their beliefs;
# From: Steve Knight <skni...@cox.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
# Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
# Message-ID: <8t6ve5hs41qn3a2rv...@4ax.com>
# Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
#
# On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
# <blondes_g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#
# >Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
#
# It is the most foul, disgusting filth on Earth.
# The sooner we nuke you fuckers, the better.
#
# Warlord Steve
# BAAWA
> You need to be kept in check, for everyones good.
But not through mass murder as already happened in
EVERY atheist state in history.. and who say's its
for 'everyones' good when it's only you militant atheists
saying it!?
..and why do you want to prevent even us agnostics from
saying and believing things you son't agree with, you
hate filled atheist thugs?
> Relgious nuts like you
Everyon likes me, I'm a really nice guy!
your views, and those of your Warlord, "Fluffy"
> are both silly and dangerous.
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
Olrik
Kadaitcha Man
parcel of dropsies, the pox upon thy green sickness. Ye vituperated:
> Phhhhtt.
--
Hillbilly Cookin'
Pickled Toad Burgoo with Pulled Swamp Cabbage
Toaster Oven Deer Okra with Pit Barbecue Beet Greens
Kool-Aid Chilli Pudding with Kettle Cooked Corn Pone
fasgnadh
> On Jan 13, 6:23 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
>> - Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
> <snip>
Don't be afraid of the truth
<unsnip>
The following paragraph is the only part of that
entire article that the atheists feel thay can
deal with, I left it in because it is part of the
full picture, the atheists snipped all of the full
picture (removing ALL of it's major points)
leaving ONLY fragment, because their narrow worldview
cannot cope with the full picture:
>>In my first piece for Huffington Post Religion,
>>I noted the undeniable reality that atheists do
>>in fact face discrimination in America. But his
>>critique of the zealous nature of "new atheism"
>>is difficult to deny. When a large and vocal
>>number of atheists say that their number one
>>goal is convincing people to abandon their faith,
>>it comes as no surprise that our community is
>>construed as extreme and aggressive.
Even then all we get in response, from the atheists
is primitive, OLD TESTAMENT, eye for an eye, and
even more primitive "do unto others as they do",
when mainstream Christianity, for 2,000 years
has moved beyond that to 'do unto others AS YOU
WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.. atheists have
CEASED EVOLVING, spiritually and are two millennia
out of date;
> When all members of all religions stop trying to convince people to
> adopt their faith, I promise to stop explaining why their faith is
> silly, counterproductive, and false.
>
> <snip>
Apart from being an infantile regression to 'tit-for-Tat',
that is completely illogical; how many religions have you
studid, let alone explained why their faith is 'silly,
counterproductive and false"?
What can you tell me about the Quakers, or the Sufi, or the
Bahai, the Jain, the Zoroasterians, the Taoists, the Lakota,
the Zen Buddhists or the Inuit beliefs that you have shown
to be any of those things ?.. just post the links.. I won't
ask you to repeat what you claim to have already accomplished.
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
And yet you want ALL members of all those different faiths
to stop believing, even though you haven't dealt with even a tiny
fraction of them.
What is 'silly and unproductive' about all the civilisations,
including the modern, free, open, pluralist, tolerant
secular democracies even you atheists choose to live in
and BUILT, EVERY ONE OF THM, by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES!?
..........................................
..........................................
Compared to that very productive record we see that EVERY atheist
state has been a totalitarian shithole, in which over 70,000,000
people have been terrorised, tortured and killed and which failed
catastrophically, to the great relief of it's populaion who fled
from the despair, death and destruction back to faith...
300,000,000 new believers in China alone, in just a decade!
Clearly you atheits are pushy and agressive, forcing your
views on others because you ar upset that they think YOU
are the silly, unproductive and false ideologues, and unlike
you, THEY HAVE THE HISTORICAl PROOF! 8^o
>>
>> This is a major problem for the nonreligious
>> because it limits our reach. In the words of
>> Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
>> skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
>> Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
>> the truth; that those other people who believe
>> in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
>> if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
>> if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
>> It does not get our message across. It condemns
>> us to permanent minority status."
Jenny, are you aware that at the recent first international
atheist convention, hld here in Melbourne last year,
the distinguishd atheist speaker, Philip Adams spoke on
this very issue, warning of the damage militant atheism
was doing to the reputaiton of athesits and atheism?
WHave you even read his paper, or are you part of the typical
atheist response, uninterested in any critical analysis of
your dogma?
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
> (that's a promise I don't expect I'll ever need to keep)
It seems that's the atheists favourite kind of promise.
The EMPTY one.
Al religions are lumped together, all made collectively responsible
for anything the others do, atheists are undiscriminating in their
prejudice and pre-Old Testament morality.
fasgnadh
> On Jan 13, 9:14 pm, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 13, 6:23 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
>>> - Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>In my first piece for Huffington Post Religion,
>>>I noted the undeniable reality that atheists do
>>>in fact face discrimination in America. But his
>>>critique of the zealous nature of "new atheism"
>>>is difficult to deny. When a large and vocal
>>>number of atheists say that their number one
>>>goal is convincing people to abandon their faith,
>>>it comes as no surprise that our community is
>>>construed as extreme and aggressive.
>>
>>When all members of all religions stop trying to convince people to
>>adopt their faith, I promise to stop explaining why their faith is
>>silly, counterproductive, and false.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Jenny
>>(that's a promise I don't expect I'll ever need to keep)
>
>
> Gosh, Jenny.....perhaps in your environment, all members of all
> religions are trying to convince people to adopt their faith.
>
Ok she means a few fundies in alt.atheism, some televangelists
and the occasional door knocking JW or Mormon... that's close
enough to be a representative sample of BILLIONS of believers
for atheist prejudice. ;-)
> Not clear of exactly where you are, but if you need help to get out,
> call someone, dial 911. Yikes. Perhaps "all members.., etc" are
> doing so, only because you are paying attention to, and focusing only
> on, what those "all members...etc" are saying. Perhaps you
> should step back and, oh, I dunno, live a life, open your eyes;
> your passion is clear, don't make it the only thing. That's sad.
This sense of Collective Responsibility pervades the perceptions
of many atheists, they hold, for example, ALL Muslims, even ALL
religious believers, responsible for the acts of a handful of
Islamofascist terrorists, who are acting in direct contravention
of the Qur'an. The still, after centuries, hold all Christians,
and by extension ALL religious, responsible for the crusaddes,
the inquisition and the Borgia Popes.
And yet try and get atheists to acknowledge their own history,
eg the fact that EVERY atheist state has been a totalitarian tyranny
and that the terror, torture and murder in no way breaches any central
tenet of atheism.. and they ignore the facts, or pretend they have been
personally accused of responsibiliity. B^D
It's hilarious.
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
fasgnadh
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:28:01 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:4D2FA575...@yahoo.com.au...
>>
>>
>>>Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
>>>skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
>>>Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
>>>the truth; that those other people who believe
>>>in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
>>>if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
>>>if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
>>>It does not get our message across. It condemns
>>>us to permanent minority status."
>>
>>As long as an atheist feels the need to "get a message across" he's barking
>>up the wrong tree.
>
>
> The only message we try to get across, is in response to your bullying
> and lies.
Here's Chris 'Drillchuck" Lee "getting the mssage across" in
"response" to the Bullying and lies of the Big Bad Man who..
... wished him Merry Christmas: 8^o
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion.christian.pentecostal/msg/fb14f04588cd8ddd?hl=en
>>Jefferson: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
>>gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
>
> If only the fundamentalists and evangelicals could take that advice.
You see, DVH, ALL the theists are responsible for the fundies
who at come time have upset Chris, and that gives him permanent
carte blanche to be as horrible as he wants to every theist..
Atheists follow the evil doictrine of Collective responsibility,
they hold EVERY Muslim, even EVERY theist Collectively to blame for
the acts of ANY ONE of them.. and their hatred festers, fueld by self
righteousness;
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
> We wouldn't give a flying fuck what you believe if you kept it inside
> your religion.
The atheist regimes prove otherwise!
All of the free open tolerant progressive secular democracies have
been built by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies, who adopted the separation
of church and state to prevent any ONE doctrin from combining
with the POWER of the state, and thus dominating, and potentially
oppressing, all the others.. which is what happned in every atheist
state in history.
Even the atheists choose to live in the majority religious societies,
which protect minority views, including those of atheists, in contrast
to EVERY athesit regime, where theists were oppressed, persecuted and
killed .. over 70,000,000 dead.. far more than ANY religion in history!
Chris thinks he's in a Clint Eastwood movie.. about to
rip somone a new arsehole, this is his persona no matter who
the theist is he's talking to:
> It's your business.
>
> But you don't.
>
> You make it our business when you impose it and when you show bigotry
> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>
> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
> kids.
>
> People REACT to that.
>
> Show some honesty and stop pretending.
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
fasgnadh
By the doctrine of Collective responsibility,
Chris feels entitled to project the worst he
may have experienced, (or imagined) onto you..
They do the same to me becasue, although I'm an agnostic,
I criticise the hate speech of militant atheists
and talk about the reality of state atheism.
>
>>It's your business.
>>
>>But you don't.
>>
>>You make it our business when you impose it
>
>
> Show where I've imposed religion...
Atheists have called me a Christian, Muslim,
even an atheist.. any label they think entitles
them to act out their cognitive dissonance.
>>and when you show bigotry
>>and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>>
>>Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
>>kids.
>
>
> Show where I've done that...
Atheists show evidence for their claims?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!
>>People REACT to that.
>>
>>Show some honesty and stop pretending.
>
>
>
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
fasgnadh
> "Syd M. claims no proof is required for athesit slander:
>>On Jan 14, 8:38 am, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:9bj0j696ekjl1pkh9...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:28:01 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"fasgnadh" <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4D2FA575...@yahoo.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>>>Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
>>>>>>skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
>>>>>>Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
>>>>>>the truth; that those other people who believe
>>>>>>in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
>>>>>>if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
>>>>>>if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
>>>>>>It does not get our message across. It condemns
>>>>>>us to permanent minority status."
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as an atheist feels the need to "get a message
>>>>> across" he's barking
>>>>> up the wrong tree.
>>>>
>>>>The only message we try to get across, is in response to your bullying
>>>>and lies.
>>>
>>>>>Jefferson: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
>>>>>gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
>>>>
>>>>If only the fundamentalists and evangelicals could take that advice.
>>>
>>>>We wouldn't give a flying fuck what you believe if you kept it inside
>>>>your religion.
>>>
>>>You do walk into traps of your own making.
>>>
>>>What religion is my religion?
Good qestion, it's clear Chris holds all theists collectively
responsible for anything any theist has ever done, and even if
you don't have a religion, and thus he can't name it, he is
still going to PROJECT one onto you, becasue that's all his
militant atheist hate-script allows for.
He doesn't like what you say, so you MUST be a theist!
Once placed in his stereotype and dehumanised (cf Nazi propaganda about
"the Dirty Jew") he doesn't deal with YOU per se, but his PROJECTION,
and he feels entitled to punish you for the collective sins of theists..
even if you aren't one!! 8^o
It's a hermtically sealed, circular pathology.
>>Doesn't matter. Your a perfect example of an arrogant nasty little
>>theist.
B^D They don't know IF you are a theist, they don't know what kind
of theist you could be, if you are one, but as they have BRANDED
you a "Dirty Jew" and the propaganda they associate with that is vile,
then you are, in their perverted perception, vile.. entitling them
to behave as they wish, with no restraint.
Not all atheist are sociopaths, but these two should be
diagnosed by a professional.
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion.christian.pentecostal/msg/fb14f04588cd8ddd?hl=en
> Does he seriously imagine his dishonesty and nastiness fools anybody?
What dishonesty.. he asked you a question and you can't answer..
The dishonsety is yours.
The fact that another atheist stooge repeats your idiocy does not
make it any the less idiotic.
What kind of lunatic thinks a question, requiring you to
provide evidence of your claims about him, is 'nastiness'.
No need to repeat the non-germane, self serveing distraction from
the point, it just makes you look even more desperate and foolish;
> This is a projection
Written by you to avoid a question asked
> by pig-ignorant theists
Is he a theist? What denomination? where's your evidence?
Once exposed all you do is repeat your irrelevant ranting.
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
fasgnadh
DVH is an atheist!?
But Drillchuck lee and Syd Slander have been declaring him
an evil thseist, and when he asked them "tell me what this religion
you claim I have is" they redoubled their abuse!
The funny thing is, they both assert there's no such thing
as evangelical or militant atheism!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAA
And here they are putting the boot into a fellow atheist
who disagrees with them, calling him a THEIST BULLY!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
Priceless!
They should make a TV soapie out of alt.atheism and call it
LOST II - the Souls! B^D
> for other atheists not to over-react to well meaning
> theists.
As an agnostic, I've been making the same plea for two years.
I asked a couple of questions "Why are there no great and enduring
atheist civilisations, or even a decent democratic atheist state?"
"Why are all the athsit states in history totalitarian history, and
why, if you have no beliefs, do you advertise them on T-Shirts
and buses";
http://www.thearrogantatheist.com/mensnogod.html
Well, I got the full 'Theist bastard" treatment! B^D
I was accused of being a Christian fundie, a Muslim, a Bahai,
a taliban, even an atheist! B^D ALL PROJECTIONS with no
supporting evidence when challenged.. it's just LABELLING
by those who deal in STEREOTYPES becasue they can't debate a REAL
intellect.
From the outset I had explained that the default
logical position is agnosticism.
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Subject: Re: Education: an atheist's dilemma
# Message-ID: <sF8jm.12963$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:26:48 GMT
#
#
# In the end I opted for secular schools..
#
# As my brother, St Rod, says, "I'm not interested
# in people's theology, I just want to see how they TREAT OTHERS!"
#
# 'Adopt as your fundamental creed that you will equip
# yourself for life, not solely for your own benefit,
# but for the benefit of the whole community'
#
# - Sir John Monash, 1923
Two years ago I went through the same questions DVH has asked,
"What religion do you claim I follow, and have 'foisted' on you?" ..
and they all continued their BASELESS PROJECTIONS, slander and abuse..
and argued among themselves and offered no proof for ANY of their beliefs;
# Newsgroups: alt.abortion,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: fasgnadh is an atheist
# From: Uncle Vic <add...@withheld.com>
# Message-ID: <Xns9CBCEB9D...@216.196.97.131>
# Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:08:00 -0600
#
# One fine day in alt.atheism, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
# >
# > fasgnadh is an atheist.
#
# He seems to be atheist in one way or another.
# From: Eunometic <euno...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,
# alt.agnosticism,aus.politics
# Subject: Who is the fasgnadh troll?
# Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:50:02 -0800 (PST)
# Message-ID:
# <35b32342-466e-45cc...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
#
#
# Now he has turned into a Muslim kook
# From: Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com>
# Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:28:41 -0400
# Message-ID: <hp0b9v$ols$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
#
# fasgnadh,why don't you once and for all admit that you're an atheist ?
#
# It'd be the right thing to do.
Even when they admitted what i told them, they
still claimed that I was trying to wind them up .. by ASKING QUESTIONS
they couldn't answer;
# From: raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,alt.religion,
# alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.democrats,
# uk.politics.misc,aus.politics,alt.politics.communism
# Subject: Re: The Decline of alt atheism - and time to say farewell to
the most trivial and useless branch of Nihilism! B^D
# Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:26:06 -0400
# Message-ID: <n4ofb51jvj209trfh...@4ax.com>
#
# > Dear old "fasgnadh" asserts his deity exists, but can't prove it.
#
# Fasgnadh has never asserted that a deity exists, and recently admitted
# to being agnostic. He's not here to push a deity, he's here to push
# peoples buttons.
As the ARIS data showed atheists are a mere 0.7% of the US population
(outnumbered by the agnostics ;-) and a mere 4% of the total
non-believers (atheist agnostic, secular humanists, freethinkers,
Jedi, Wiccans, don't care, don't have an opinion.. etc)
So most non believers explicitly reject being identified as atheists.
Might I suggest it's becasue of their BEHAVIOUR! B^p
QA lot of us are tired of THEM trying to stuff THEIR UNFOUNDED
BELIEFS down our throats, including their false projections,
as we saw in this thread where they labeled DVH (an atheist)
a 'Theist Bully"
They do not use language to debate they use it to BRAND, and
then attack.. and they don't care if the brand is truthful at all.
> You are correct in that atheists are often put in the position of
> either speaking up or tacitly accepting criticisms of their lack of
> belief.
What we have witnessed in this thread is quite the opposite..
an article By AN ATHEIST discussed evangelical atheism..
it's been snipped, derided, ignored, anything but SERIOUSLY
discussed, and one commntator, whom you tell us is an atheist
has been set upon in a manner far more aggressive, hostile
and abusive than ANY religious evangelical I have ever seen.
The JWS are always polite and if I tell them I'm not interested
they bugger off.. sam with the Mormons.
Sometimes I have invited them in and had a talk, they left as
soon as I indicated I had no further questions or interest.
Chris Less and Syd Slander have SHOUTED DOWN a fellow atheist
(according to you) who they branded as a theist bully and then
proceeded to tell them how that entitled to pack rape him because
they 'have been wronged' sometime, by someone.. fer fucks sake!
That is not some milksop sensitive agonising if they can mention
the atheism that Dares Not Speak it's Name, it is militant
atheist thugs LYING about someone so they can feel justified
in their violent abuse ..
And when he calmly asks 'what's this religion you claim I have'
they just shout louder . like fucking MANIACS!
Militant atheists have LOST THE PLOT!
Last year, 12 months AFTER I began discussing the problems of these
militants, the Atheism 2.0 response, and opened the notion
of ARM the Atheist Reform Movement, a keynote speaker at the first
International Atheist Convention, held in Australia, addressed
this very issue of MILITANT ATHEISTS and the damage they are causing!
I am not the one who is out of step here.. it is the knuckle
dragging trogladytes who yell and smash things up in alt.atheism
who are the retrograde THROWBACKS.
> I publicly declared my atheism when 15 years old and my
> experience is that most discussions with theists originated in their
> attempts to impose their beliefs on me.
When you say "impose" do you mean the state forcibly indoctrinated
you, as happened to schoolchildren in the athiest states?
When you say 'discussions' initiated by them, you mean
they held you down and forced you to listen, or locked
you in an asylum and pumped drugs into you...
Did they expropriate your buildings and other property,
torture and kill hundreds of thousands of your leaders?
Or did they just talk at you?
Reza Aslan has written extensively on the atheist persecution
complex but you are free to speak and think and publish your
beliefs.. we all saw them on the sides of London buses and
Dawkins is a minor celebrity among the undergraduates.
In the atheist states, the USSR, Maoist China and Pol Pot's cambodia,
christians were beaten, CRUCIFIED, shot, stripped in winter and
had water poured on them till they froze into human Icy-poles.
In the west, atheists whine if some local evangelical
knocks on their door to tell them about Jesus!
Spare us the hysteria.
> I do not recall an instance in my long life in which
> I initiated the question of their theistic
> beliefs.
So you are talking about them just talking at you!
No physical constraint and torture?
However did you survive the ordeal!? B^p
Everyday I have a thousand billboards and TV ads
screeching their commercial propaganda at me..
I feel so persecuted by materialism ! B^[
Look, when you are 0.7% of the population and they are
80%, the standard bell curve suggests there will be
110 times more theist 'tards than atheist 'tards
and so the chances of running into one in public
is in that ratio.. one obnoxious atheist for
every 110 obnoxious evangelicals.
I have to tell you, I've had about a dozen door knockers in
a couple of decades.. so i'm in for another hundred or
so before the odds suggest that a Chris lee or a Syd will
land on my porch.
I think I can manage.. don't you, Princess? ;-)
> Zinnic
--
#
# Verily:
#
# The religion of love is a part from all religions.
# The lovers of God have no religion but God alone
# -The Mathnawi II, 1720
fasgnadh
> "Zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
> news:bb3d57fc-0548-49a0...@15g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>Seems to me that you are over-reacting to his plea (as a fellow
>>>atheist) for other atheists not to over-react to well meaning
>>>theists.
>>>You are correct in that atheists are often put in the position of
>>>either speaking up or tacitly accepting criticisms of their lack of
>>>belief.
>>
>>That may be cultural. Are you US? In Britain, where people
>> allegedly believe it's rude to talk about politics
>> or religion, the topic is rarely raised.
>>
>>Atheism is probably more common here, from what I gather.
0.7% in the USA
2.3% worldwide.
Non religious is significantly higher, but includes the more
numerous, but less stridently vocal, agnostics, freethinkers
undecided,the indifferent, the don't know/ don't care,
crystal healers, astrologers and crack heads.
>> In Europe, weddings and funerals pass without injury
>> to atheists present.
What happens to them in the US - gelding?
>>
>> All that is notwithstanding certain family environments
>> where adherence remains particularly important.
>>
>>
>>>I publicly declared my atheism when 15 years old and my
>>>experience is that most discussions with theists originated in their
>>>attempts to impose their beliefs on me. I do not recall an instance in
>>>my long life in which I initiated the question of their theistic
>>>beliefs.
>>
>>I change the subject if I'm evangelised, which is rarely.
>
>
>>I guess you're a Brit? I am an expatriate. More than half my life in
>>the USA. I can conceive of an avowed atheist being elected to public
>>office in the UK and Europe but not here in the US.
>
>
> We have one leading the opposition party at the moment. But whether he gets
> elected is another matter.
We have an Australian PM who is the first elected woman and the
first elected athiest in the top job.
I voted for her, the opposiiton leader was a Catholic
conservative, ("Climate Change is Crap"), Vatican-oriented
.. many of the Catholics I know don't like him, his daughter
Frances said this about him:
http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/DisplayFile.aspx?img=/Posters/Tony_3342_3290e.jpg&w=880
which won him sympathy, at least from parents. ;-)
Basically Aussies don't give a stuff about peoples religious
beliefs, they don't like wowsers, they prefer the Salvo's
to the Clappy Happies because the salvo's provide PRACTICAL
help.
In a land of droughts and floods, the traditional Aussie
relationship to God has a lot to do with Holy Dan, the man
who never swore;
Holy Dan
It was in the Queensland drought;
And over hill and dell,
No grass – the water far apart,
All dry and hot as hell.
The wretched bullock teams drew up
Beside a water-hole –
They’d struggled on through dust and drought
For days to reach this goal.
And though the water rendered forth
A rank, unholy stench,
The bullocks and the bullockies
Drank deep their thirst to quench.
Two of the drivers cursed and swore
As only drivers can.
The other one, named Daniel,
Best known as Holy Dan,
Admonished them and said it was
The Lord’s all-wise decree;
And if they’d only watch and wait,
A change they’d quickly see.
’Twas strange that of Dan’s bullocks
Not one had gone aloft,
But this, he said, was due to prayer
And supplication oft.
At last one died but Dan was calm,
He hardly seemed to care;
He knelt beside the bullock’s corpse
And offered up a prayer.
"One bullock Thou has taken, Lord,
And so it seemeth best.
Thy will be done, but see my need
And spare to me the rest!"
A month went by. Dan’s bullocks now
Were dying every day,
But still on each occasion would
The faithful fellow pray,
"Another Thou has taken, Lord,
And so it seemeth best.
Thy will be done, but see my need,
And spare to me the rest!"
And still they camped beside the hole,
And still it never rained,
And still Dan’s bullocks died and died,
Till only one remained.
Then Dan broke down – good Holy Dan –
The man who never swore.
He knelt beside the latest corpse,
And here’s the prayer he prore.
"That’s nineteen Thou has taken, Lord,
And now You’ll plainly see
You’d better take the bloody lot,
One’s no damn good to me."
The other riders laughed so much
They shook the sky around;
The lightning flashed, the thunder roared,
And Holy Dan was drowned.
> As for Brussels and the EU, it's probably an advantage
> to positively declare your atheism.
>
> A Catholic guy called Rocco Buttiglione was nominated for the Justice and
> Home Affairs post, and because parliament believed he would bring religion
> into politics, they wouldn't accept him. It caused a fuss.
Did atheists protest the injustice and discrimination?
> It may or may not surprise you, but the reaction of an Italian minister at
> the time was "This decision shows the real face of Europe, a face which we
> don't like. It's fundamentalist, which is absolutely not on".
>
>
>>Probably more self-
>>confessed atheists over there than here, where speaking up is much
>>more likely to be disadvantageous socially, politically and
>>economically.
>
>
> Yes, that's how I understand it. Except I suppose people in some blue states
> and metros wouldn't care.
# "At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one
# half of the world's population identified itself as
# either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu or Buddhist,
# and 100 years of secularism, and technological
# advancement, and scientific progress later and that
# number is now two thirds.
#
# So, for those of you who enjoy beginning coffee shop
# conversations with "The Death of God" .. it's time to
# change the subject! It's time to talk about something else ,
# because it's not happening at all.
#
# People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
# and religion itself is also evolving"
#
# - Dr Reza Aslan
#
# http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
Religion is gong to remain central to solving global issues.
I believe the moderates of all faiths, and none, need to
work together if the extremists of all stripes are to be contained.
The aussie approach is working with anyone who will help
get the job done, we have no time for bludgers and whiners...
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
Mitchell Holman
news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>
>
> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
They don't need to.
Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
who have to prove their claims.
fasgnadh
> On Jan 13, 6:23 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> <>
>
>>"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
>
>
> You are referring,
Not I , the atheist author of the article,
it seems you didn't even read it
> I assume,
If you had read it you wouldn't have to guess,
he made it quite clear what he was talking about..
But I suppose if the reality causes you cognitive
dissonance you had best 'assume' your own straw man and
deal with it instead.. that way you can avoid thinking and
just run your standard script...
> to those atheists
> who show up on your front porch and want
> to explain their views to you?
Actually I don't think your attempts to project the
views of the atheis wuthor you didn't read onto me
and then ask me to speak for his athesit perspective
is going to work..
should i just make shit up like you are, and we can
exchange fantasies?
I would assume that most prosletysing these days is
done using mass media.
Televangelism, youtube, Bus ads.. you know,
Dawkins and Hitchins self promotion
> The ones which
> leave pamphlets stuck in the door when you
> aren't home?
Oh my God ..a pamphlet in he door.. 8^o
WHAT SHALL WE DO!?
Hadly like having your church expropriated an your
priests crucified by an atheist regime, is it;
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!"
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...
all this talk about God is sheer nonsense"
- Stalin
E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
But it was not just the Atheism of the leadership,
but of the entire atheist State apparatus;
The Atheist leadership's policies were implemented under
the Red Terror, via gulags and executions, the use of
every arm of the state for anti-religious propaganda
and the forced indoctrination of CHILDREN! B^[
"We do not fight against believers and not even clergymen.
WE FIGHT AGAINST GOD to snatch believers from Him."
-Vechernaia Moskva, a Soviet newspaper
"Let us drive out the Capitalists from the earth,
and God from Heaven!" (early Soviet slogan)
"the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
- Daniel Peris,
"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
"Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden"
"Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
- John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State
(Boston: Little Brown, 1953)
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Wolak2004
#
# "State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
# by a government, typically by active suppression of
# religious freedom and practice."
# - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
# Characteristics and Consequences,
# David Kowalewski,
# Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,
#
#
# "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhist religion:
# monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
# Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
# other religious sentiments were often killed.
# ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
# and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
# and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
# starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
# prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
# instead of the family.
#
# About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
# were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot’s regime."
# - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
#
# The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg
#
# "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
# regarded by the regime as social parasites,
# were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
# Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
# destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
# Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
# rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
# or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
# were often killed.
#
# The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
# persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
# Phnom Penh was completely razed.
#
# The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
# regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
# Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
# - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm
#
# "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
# because of their religion."
#
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg
#
#
# "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
# - Daniel Peris,
# "Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
# Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
#
#
# "State atheism has been mostly implemented in communist
# countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[1] China,
# Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea,
# Communist Mongolia and Poland under communist rule also
# promoted state atheism and suppressed religion.
# - Forced out: the fate of Polish Jewry in Communist Poland.
# Wolak, Arthur J. p 104
#
# In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an
# intrinsic part of communist ideology.
> The ones who approach you
> on the street corner and ask "Brother, do
> you know Ingersoll?"
Yes he was beaten to death in an atheist gulag,
his last words were "thank God I wasn't crucified
during an athesit genocide";
hthttp://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg
> The atheists who
> are forever shamelessly invoking Russell
> and Carnap and Hume when opening
> a town meeting?
If you can find three posts in alt.atheism doing
so in the last week we will all be mighty surprised,
they all seem to invoke the 'enlightened spirit' of
Chris Lee and your Warlord's endorsement of Genocide;
# From: "John Fraser" <jfr...@ns.sympatico.ca>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Merry Christmas
# Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:03 -0400
# Message-ID: <4953abb6$1$5460$9a56...@news.aliant.net>
#
# Hello Folks;
#
# I'd like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas
# and a safe holiday season. Phil 4:8.
#
# Cheers,
# John
# From: Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
# Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Merry Christmas
# Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:24:01 -0500
# Message-ID: <o07dl41sa4t4jhof3...@4ax.com>
#
# "go fuck yourself with your crucifix in a drill chuck'.
> The atheists who
> try to out-atheist their opponents in
> television political ads?
Is this what you mean;
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
> Those pushy atheists?
or these ones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIrUHVFkm9A
How I wish I could have been as lucky as the
70,000,000 victims of the atheist regimes,
terrorised tortured and killed .. but instead
of that blessing I had to suffer the horror
of two ladies offering me a WatchTower,
and the agony of refusing their kind offer
and wishing them good day.
Oh the suffering I have endured! 8^o
>
> Yeah, you're right. They're as
> annoying as hell.
Could you teach me how to be a whining infant
like you?
> conan
Bill Smith
Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical. It is the burden of
atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
HTH
fasgnadh
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:05:17 -0800 (PST), Conan the bacterium
> <deinococcus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Jan 13, 6:23 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
Well, you can't tell anymore.. the entire article, by an
atheist has been excised. "we won't be havin any
of those idea thingies around here, boy..
now bugger off!"
>>You are referring, I assume, to those atheists
>>who are forever shamelessly invoking Russell
>>and Carnap and Hume when opening
>>a town meeting?
Oh yes, those afiest interlecturals love rashunal diskushin
so much that they snip the entire issue and wonder out loud
why an atheist talking about atheism should be allowed in
alt.atheism, when alt.athesim is clearly intended for
anti-theist ranting, not discussion;
> And why is it that this discussion is taking place on
> alt.atheism and NOT on some theist news group?
two answers.
1. It was, but atheists remove groups to reduce the
scale of their public humiliation.. I have restored them.
2. Becasue there was once an atheist who had an original
thought and wrote about it and all the other independent minded
free thinkers snipped it, mocked it, called him a thesit thug
for daring to have an idea outside their narrow prejudices
and even questioned why it would be raise in alt.atheism!!!!
When we all know it's for DEBASING DIALOGUE, not DEBATING!
One atheist non-conformist actually made the creative leap to
READ and consider the article, rather than snip and misrepresent it,
but he was quickly lynched by the mob with a sign hung round his neck;
"Theist Bully"
Everyone knows presenting ideas to atheists is cruel
and unusual punishment, and deserves their savage
response.
http://www.allfunpix.com/humor/pics3/stupid_people.jpg
"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
- Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
"Last Friday, a New York Times headline declared:
In my first piece for Huffington Post Religion,
I noted the undeniable reality that atheists do
in fact face discrimination in America. But his
critique of the zealous nature of "new atheism"
is difficult to deny. When a large and vocal
number of atheists say that their number one
goal is convincing people to abandon their faith,
it comes as no surprise that our community is
construed as extreme and aggressive.
This is a major problem for the nonreligious
because it limits our reach. In the words of
Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
the truth; that those other people who believe
in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
It does not get our message across. It condemns
us to permanent minority status."
The reason I do interfaith work is because I
---------
fasgnadh
.. and when Olrik removed his earplugs..
all the Hot Air leaked out...
> Phhhhtt.
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
Christopher A. Lee
Wrong, deliberately nasty, pig-ignorant in-your-face liar.
You know perfectly well that theism is taught in childhood, and that
kids who aren't taught it don't grow up theist.
In exactly the same way kids not taught to believe in pixies never
believe in them.
Why do you feel the need to lie about atheists, to atheists in an
atheist newsgroup?
>HTH
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> DVH wrote:
>>
>>> "Christopher A. Lee" labels DVH as a theist and abuses him as such
>>>
>>>> "DVH" an atheist, dared to think outside the atheist box :
and so the atheist goon squad nailed him into it
after lynching him with a sign around his neck saying
"Theist Bully and Niggr"
>>>>> "fasgnadh" <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4D2FA575...@yahoo.com.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
>>>>>> skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
>>>>>> Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
>>>>>> the truth; that those other people who believe
>>>>>> in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
>>>>>> if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
>>>>>> if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
>>>>>> It does not get our message across. It condemns
>>>>>> us to permanent minority status."
The amazing thing is that in this thread the athesit response
demonstrated EXACTLY what that atheists article described;
"Us vs. Them -- "
Chris Lee and Syd branded DVH a theist, and proceded to kick his
head in..
" the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth;"
they ignored his protestations that they had got him wrong
"what religion??? "
when pushed all they could say was 'IT DOESN'T MATTER" what we
have called you, it's our belief and we aren't changing it to
fit reality... that is FANATICAL DOGMATISM!
"that those other people who believe
in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
if not, to hell with you."
It doesn't matter to them that DVH is an atheist,
thay have projected their lies onto him and that
lie is what he has to be, to 'justify' their thuggery!
>>>>> As long as an atheist feels the need to "get a message across" he's
>>>>> barking up the wrong tree.
>>>>
Both Chris Leee and Syd Slander are barkin, alright! B^D
>>>>
>>>> The only message we try to get across, is in response to your bullying
>>>> and lies.
No evidence of any 'bullying' and 'lies' except by DVH's accusers
>>>>
>>>>> Jefferson: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are
>>>>> twenty
>>>>> gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If only the fundamentalists and evangelicals could take that advice.
>>>>
>>>> We wouldn't give a flying fuck what you believe if you kept it inside
>>>> your religion.
He's an atheist, you raving lunatic, not the fantasy you PRJECT onto him!
>>>
>>>
>>> You do walk into traps of your own making.
>>>
>>> What religion is my religion?
>>>
>>
>> By the doctrine of Collective responsibility,
>> Chris feels entitled to project the worst he
>> may have experienced, (or imagined) onto you..
>>
>> They do the same to me becasue, although I'm an agnostic,
>> I criticise the hate speech of militant atheists
>> and talk about the reality of state atheism.
>>
>>>>
>>>> You make it our business when you impose it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Show where I've imposed religion...
It's just what htey say, they know it's not true,
it's like nazis screaming 'Dirty Jew' to a well dressed
man in a suit... by dehumanising him they excuse their
violence against him...
>> Atheists have called me a Christian, Muslim,
>> even an atheist.. any label they think entitles
>> them to act out their cognitive dissonance.
>>
>>
>>>> and when you show bigotry
>>>> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>>>>
>>>> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
>>>> kids.
>>>
>>> Show where I've done that...
>>
>> Atheists show evidence for their claims? B^D
>
> They don't need to.
When they tell another atheist to "keep it inside your
religion" and accuse him of 'teaching it's myths and
legends to our kids" and he says "WTF are you talking
about?" because he's an atheist and they are LYING about
him having a religion.. you reckon they don't have to
defend their lies and prove their BULLSHIT claims and
apologise for their slander about that man!?
When it comes to MOST IDIOTIC CLAPTRAP spouted by
morons THEN
> Atheism is the default,
> it is the religionists
> who have to prove their claims.
Hey, fuckwit, the bloke your atheist thugs
were lying about is An ATHEIST, NOT a 'religionist'
>> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!
You are SO STUPID it's a wonder you can breathe!
Ah alt.atheism, where "The atheists who
are forever invoking Russell and Carnap and Hume "
can't read and comprehend a simple post, let alone
formulate a coherent response!
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
Oliv
Atheist is a term coined by the deluded to describe someone who does
not share that delusion
Mitchell Holman
> Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> fasgnadh<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>> news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>>
>>
>> They don't need to.
>>
>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
>> who have to prove their claims.
>
> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical.
Wrong. It is rational to believe in what you can
see and feel and hear and the logical deductions
therefrom. It is irrational to believe in what you
cannot.
> It is the burden of
> atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
The BOP is on proponents of god/tooth fairy/
Santa Claus/Ra/Odin/Zeus to prove the existence
of such.
Mitchell Holman
4ax.com:
"A delusion held by one person is a mental illness,
held by a few is a cult, held by many is a religion."
Christopher A. Lee
<nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Bill Smith <no...@none.none> wrote in news:ezerjwnb...@none.none:
>
>> Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> fasgnadh<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>>> news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>>>
>>> They don't need to.
>>>
>>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
>>> who have to prove their claims.
>>
>> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical.
>
> Wrong. It is rational to believe in what you can
>see and feel and hear and the logical deductions
>therefrom. It is irrational to believe in what you
>cannot.
In-your-face jerkoffs like this one are incapable of grasping that in
the real world beyond his deity-belief is not substantively different
from any of the hundreds of others.
So that not believing in his particular god is no different at all
than his own not believing in Zeus, Osiris, Krishna, and all the rest.
But does he have to come here and nastily lie about us to our faces?
If these morons had the common sense and courtesy to keep their
delusions to themselves nobody would point out that they are like an
adult insisting that Father Christmas is real and who tells people who
treat it as a game played with the kids, that they ha veto prove he
isn't.
Watch him turn into a even nastier, whining hypocrite when he gets
treated as rudely as he treated us in the first place.
But hey, that's what Christians do here.
We know them by their fruits.
Christopher A. Lee
Very true.
Les Hellawell
>Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> fasgnadh<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>> news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>>
>>
>> They don't need to.
>>
>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
>> who have to prove their claims.
>
>Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical.
Assertion without supporting evidence. Defaults
to worthless and not something to be accepted
just on your say-so. (whoever you are)
>It is the burden of
>atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
but I am not the least bit interested in whether
you regard absence of belief in the existence of
gods as claimed by others as rational or not. What
you choose to believe is of no interest to me so
I have no desire nor need to prove anything to
you.
I know what you just wrote is false, millions
of others agree and that is good enough for
me.
On the other hand if you wish me to accept
your claim there is a god then you will need
to convince me and on my terms. I shall
decide what to believe and on what basis,
not you.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
Yorkshire -The White Rose County
Paul Myers
> >> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism
> >> # Subject: A.A. BAAWA - FAQ
> >> # Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:46:34 -0700
> >> #
> >> # We kill theists and shit down their throats
> >> #
> >> # Warlord Steve
> >> # BAAWA
>
> >> Not satisfied with murder, the atheist's 'Warlord'(sic)
> >> advocates GENOCIDE, th murder of 1,600,000,000 men
> >> women and children because of their beliefs;
>
> >> # Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.islam
> >> # Subject: Re: Islam: the perfect religion and way of life for all
> >> # Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:58:18 -0800
> >> #
> >> # On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:22:32 +0200, "Katrina"
>
> read more »
Thank you Olrik i think you gave the best possible response to fagnuts
and his butt buddy.
Phhhhtt. is the best these losers deserve.
DVH
Why get angry about it?
They're not lying, they're making a claim in a newsgroup.
That's been done since usenet was invented.
There's no law against it. It would be difficult to categorise it as bigotry
or discrimination. It "neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg".
People do it for multiple reasons. Sometimes to order their own thoughts.
Sometimes to test an idea. Sometimes to wind up people who take these things
personally.
Whatever the motivation, you're free to ignore it unless for some reason
you're not in control of your emotions.
DVH
> DVH wrote:
>> "Zinnic" <zeen...@gate.net> wrote in message
>> news:bb3d57fc-0548-49a0...@15g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>>Seems to me that you are over-reacting to his plea (as a fellow
>>>>atheist) for other atheists not to over-react to well meaning
>>>>theists.
>>>>You are correct in that atheists are often put in the position of
>>>>either speaking up or tacitly accepting criticisms of their lack of
>>>>belief.
>>>
>>>That may be cultural. Are you US? In Britain, where people allegedly
>>>believe it's rude to talk about politics
> >> or religion, the topic is rarely raised.
>>>
>>>Atheism is probably more common here, from what I gather.
>
> 0.7% in the USA
>
> 2.3% worldwide.
>
> Non religious is significantly higher, but includes the more
> numerous, but less stridently vocal, agnostics, freethinkers
> undecided,the indifferent, the don't know/ don't care,
> crystal healers, astrologers and crack heads.
Thanks for the info.
>
>>> In Europe, weddings and funerals pass without injury to atheists
>>> present.
>
> What happens to them in the US - gelding?
:-)
>
>>>
>>> All that is notwithstanding certain family environments where adherence
>>> remains particularly important.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I publicly declared my atheism when 15 years old and my
>>>>experience is that most discussions with theists originated in their
>>>>attempts to impose their beliefs on me. I do not recall an instance in
>>>>my long life in which I initiated the question of their theistic
>>>>beliefs.
>>>
>>>I change the subject if I'm evangelised, which is rarely.
>>
>>
>>>I guess you're a Brit? I am an expatriate. More than half my life in
>>>the USA. I can conceive of an avowed atheist being elected to public
>>>office in the UK and Europe but not here in the US.
>>
>>
>> We have one leading the opposition party at the moment. But whether he
>> gets elected is another matter.
>
>
> We have an Australian PM who is the first elected woman and the
> first elected athiest in the top job.
>
> I voted for her
I hear atheist heads exploding.
>, the opposiiton leader was a Catholic
> conservative, ("Climate Change is Crap"), Vatican-oriented
> .. many of the Catholics I know don't like him, his daughter
> Frances said this about him:
>
> http://www.tonyabbottisright.com/DisplayFile.aspx?img=/Posters/Tony_3342_3290e.jpg&w=880
>
> which won him sympathy, at least from parents. ;-)
>
>
> Basically Aussies don't give a stuff about peoples religious
> beliefs, they don't like wowsers, they prefer the Salvo's
> to the Clappy Happies because the salvo's provide PRACTICAL
> help.
And excellent brass bands, at least in the UK.
Heh. I enjoyed that.
>
>
>
>> As for Brussels and the EU, it's probably an advantage to positively
>> declare your atheism.
>>
>> A Catholic guy called Rocco Buttiglione was nominated for the Justice and
>> Home Affairs post, and because parliament believed he would bring
>> religion into politics, they wouldn't accept him. It caused a fuss.
>
>
> Did atheists protest the injustice and discrimination?
They were oddly silent.
IMV Buttiglione's problem was frankness to the point of naivety.
There are probably numerous EU civil servants who believe homosexuality is
bad and woman's task is providing children, but Buttiglione was the only one
unwise enough to declare it to a strongly left-wing and secular parliament.
A touch of the Holy Dan syndrome, maybe.
That sounds highly reasonable.
"Where you have masses of people of crude susceptibilities and clumsy
intelligence, sordid in their pursuits and sunk in drudgery, religion
provides the only means of proclaiming and making them feel the hight import
of life.
For the average man takes an interest, primarily, in nothing but what will
satisfy his physical needs and hankerings, and beyond this, give
him a little amusement and pastime.
Founders of religion and philosophers come into the world to rouse him from
his stupor and point to the lofty meaning of existence; philosophers for the
few, the emancipated, founders of religion for the many, for humanity at
large. For, as your friend Plato has said, the multitude can't be
philosophers, and you shouldn't forget that. Religion is the metaphysics of
the masses; by all means let them keep it: let it therefore command external
respect, for to discredit it is to take it away. Just as they have popular
poetry, and the popular wisdom of proverbs, so they must have popular
metaphysics too: for mankind absolutely needs an interpretation of life; and
this, again, must be suited to popular comprehension.
Consequently, this interpretation is always an allegorical investiture of
the truth: and in practical life and in its effects on the feelings, that is
to say, as a rule of action and as a comfort and consolation in suffering
and death, it accomplishes perhaps just as much as the truth itself could
achieve if we possessed it.
Don't take offense at its unkempt, grotesque and apparently absurd form; for
with your education and learning, you have no idea of the roundabout ways by
which people in their crude state have to receive their knowledge of deep
truths. The various religions are only various forms in which the truth,
which taken by itself is above their comprehension, is grasped and realized
by the masses; and truth becomes inseparable from these forms."
>
> The aussie approach is working with anyone who will help
> get the job done, we have no time for bludgers and whiners...
This recently confirmed by news reports from Queensland.
Aussie standing by wrecked house: "Yeah, we lost everything. But we'll get
over it [grins]"
DVH
OK, I hadn't really noted this aspect.
I was mostly focussing on the utter unshakeability of the convictions of
some of them, and their total freedom from doubt.
DVH
"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:8ch3j6h05otjbqrcv...@4ax.com...
I'm surprised to hear you "decide what to believe".
I just acknowledge what is.
For the numerous grey areas, I have to remain in doubt.
Les Hellawell
How odd you think that
Moving away from the default position we are born with of not
believing always requires a decision unless of course it
is imprinted in your mind when you are still too young to make
rational decisions for yourself.
I would have thought that was self-evident.
Christopher A. Lee
But not to theists.
Because they can't externalise themselves from it, and it happened
before they even learned to think, they imagine it is innate,
instinctive etc.
DVH
When did you decide to believe in Timbuktoo?
Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't believe
in Timbuktoo"?
DVH
Please clarify.
At what stage does one typically "learn to think"?
If "it" happened (I'm assuming "it" means they started believing in God)
before theists even learned to think, is their belief not innate?
Les Hellawell
Believe what in Timbuktoo?
>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't believe
>in Timbuktoo"?
DVH
The existence of Timbuktoo.
>
>>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't
>>believe
>>in Timbuktoo"?
Answer requested...
Les Hellawell
It's existence as what?
>>>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't
>>>believe
>>>in Timbuktoo"?
>
>Answer requested...
Denied, it is a stupid question.
The Magpie
>> who have to prove their claims.
>
> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical. It is the burden
> of atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
>
such a silly question.
The Magpie
>> who have to prove their claims.
>
> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical. It is the burden
> of atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
>
DVH
As Timbuktoo.
>
>
>>>>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't
>>>>believe
>>>>in Timbuktoo"?
>>
>>Answer requested...
>
> Denied, it is a stupid question.
I'm uncertain about the validity of this "default position" you refer to,
though I've seen the phrase employed by several posters.
Assume for the sake of argument that the default position on Timbuktoo is
that it doesn't exist.
How would we prove this was the default position?
If you asked a child who is ignorant of Timbuktoo "do you believe in
Timbuktoo?" she might make a game of it and say "No!" just for fun. But it's
more likely she'd say "what's Timbuktoo?" or words to that effect.
The default position on God is, you say, one of not believing in his/its/her
existence.
If we asked a child who had not yet been exposed to the notion of a God "do
you believe in God?" the default position would lead him to say "No".
But the possibility that a child unaware even of the idea of a God might
positively deny God's existence seems problematic. He might say "No" for
fun. But if he was telling the truth, it seems more likely he'd say "what's
God?"
So I think that claiming there's a default position may be a misdescription.
Andre Lieven
> "Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
>
> news:g154j65t9qk9dnstc...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:37:30 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ip34j6l3o94t2rfam...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:57:45 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1dv3j65frj79mllun...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:11:13 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:8ch3j6h05otjbqrcv...@4ax.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
Plenty of material and testable evidence exists of the existance
of any real place on Earth.
NO material and testable evidence exists of the existance
of any claimed deity.
We can test the material evidences, plural, for Timbuktoo
pretty easily. Google it, look up it's area code and dial a
phone number there, and so on.
Now, provide some material and testable evidence for any
deity; You will be the first to ever do so, if you can.
*Until you can do that*, your attempted metaphor of
Timboktoo utterly fails.
> >>>>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't
> >>>>believe in Timbuktoo"?
>
> >>Answer requested...
>
> > Denied, it is a stupid question.
>
> I'm uncertain about the validity of this "default position" you refer to,
> though I've seen the phrase employed by several posters.
Then, you are willfully ignorant; That is your problem alone.
The default position of rational people is that, anyone coming
to them and making an extraordinary claim bears the *burden
of providing supporting extraordinary evidence* in support of'
the claim.
Most real and material things are already well so supported,
and the evidence has been tested and found to be sound.
Like whether or not Timbuktoo exists. It does, tested
evidence supports that statement.
But, NO claimed deity figure EVER has even tried to meet
this test, much less passed it. Thus, in the face of that, a
standing default non acceptance of such a claim is quite
reasonable.
> Assume for the sake of argument that the default position on
> Timbuktoo is that it doesn't exist.
That would be very stupid, for the reasons that I have described.
There is material and tested evidence for it's existance. Thus, no
default non acceptance is warrented.
There is NO material and tested evidence for the existance of any
deity. Thus, in that case, the default non acceptance position is
fully reasonable.
The difference is tested evidence. Those things for which there IS
some such, the default non acceptance position is not warrented.
> How would we prove this was the default position?
As I just did, WRT deities. It's not a hard question.
> If you asked a child who is ignorant of Timbuktoo "do you believe in
> Timbuktoo?" she might make a game of it and say "No!" just for fun. But it's
> more likely she'd say "what's Timbuktoo?" or words to that effect.
There's what made your analogy collapse: You posited a CHILD.
Children don't do lab tests, or take long trips to places they have
never been to on their own. Adults do all of those things, and much
more.
> The default position on God is, you say, one of not believing in his/its/her
> existence.
Exactly correct. For the reasons I have elaborated on.
> If we asked a child who had not yet been exposed to the notion of a God "do
> you believe in God?" the default position would lead him to say "No".
Once again, you asked a CHILD, so your metaphor collapsed.
> But the possibility that a child unaware even of the idea of a God might
> positively deny God's existence seems problematic. He might say "No" for
> fun. But if he was telling the truth, it seems more likely he'd say "what's
> God?"
Ibid.
> So I think that claiming there's a default position may be a misdescription.
That's because you are, well, willfully ignorant. Which leads you to
grossly
wrong metaphors.
As I said, that is your problem.
Andre
Les Hellawell
THe name on the side of a ship, a brand of cigarrette, somebodies
name, what
>
>>
>>
>>>>>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't
>>>>>believe
>>>>>in Timbuktoo"?
>>>
>>>Answer requested...
>>
>> Denied, it is a stupid question.
>
>I'm uncertain about the validity of this "default position" you refer to,
>though I've seen the phrase employed by several posters.
>
>Assume for the sake of argument that the default position on Timbuktoo is
>that it doesn't exist.
It would not be my default but if you want to make that your
default fine
.
>How would we prove this was the default position?
It is your default position not mine.
>If you asked a child who is ignorant of Timbuktoo "do you believe in
>Timbuktoo?" she might make a game of it and say "No!" just for fun. But it's
>more likely she'd say "what's Timbuktoo?" or words to that effec
It seems to me a very strange question to ask.
I think I would ask 'Have you ever heard of Timbuckto'
But I agree 'What's Timbucktoo' is the logical question to ask
(apart from the one I asked)
>The default position on God is, you say, one of not believing in his/its/her
>existence
and not that it does not exist as you assumed for the sake of
argument regarding Timbucktoo.
>If we asked a child who had not yet been exposed to the notion of a God "do
>you believe in God?" the default position would lead him to say "No".
Hmm I see a trick question there. An assumption there is something
called 'god'. Again 'believe what' immediately springs to mind.
>But the possibility that a child unaware even of the idea of a God might
>positively deny God's existence seems problematic. He might say "No" for
>fun. But if he was telling the truth, it seems more likely he'd say "what's
>God?"
Quite
So what would your answer be?
Something on the lines of, "God is.." perhaps?
Which then immediately begs the question, "How do you
know this?
>So I think that claiming there's a default position may be a misdescription.
It was your default not mine.
DVH
I'm still not understanding how anybody can be born with a default position
that they don't believe in God.
How do you know this is the case?
Immortalist
> >news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>
> >> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>
> > They don't need to.
>
> > Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
> > who have to prove their claims.
>
> atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
>
If something is unknown it is foolish to declare it exists or not. The
Atheist cannot claim that God either exists or not, it is unknown.
Andre Lieven
> "Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
>
> news:go74j6pnjnvq0uftq...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:22:40 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>news:g154j65t9qk9dnstc...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:37:30 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:ip34j6l3o94t2rfam...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:57:45 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:1dv3j65frj79mllun...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:11:13 -0000, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>"Les Hellawell" <l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>news:8ch3j6h05otjbqrcv...@4ax.com...
Then, you are very willfully ignorant. No one is born with any
beliefs.
ALL beliefs come from being taught them, and/or experiencing things
that lead to the belief.
You fail to grasp that there IS a Big Difference between a denial
of any belief, and simply NO belief in the thing in the literal first
place.
No one is born of a belief or a denial of Santa, either. To deny
something,
one *must have first heard of the thing/being in question*.
As NO ONE is born with a knowledge/belief in god, Odin, or B'aal,
your position is ignorant.
> How do you know this is the case?
One is tempted to say 'common sense', but one can add in the
experience
of one's own memory, and of observation of small children.
But, if you wish to assert that new borns HAVE a belief and/or
knowledge
of anyone specific, please present YOUR supporting evidence for YOUR
claim...
Uh huh.
Andre
DVH
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:7e45ab79-f4b8-43c9...@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Agreed.
Be aware that I'm considering the claim that there's a default position on
the existence of God which you hold when you're born.
> NO material and testable evidence exists of the existance
> of any claimed deity.
>
> We can test the material evidences, plural, for Timbuktoo
> pretty easily. Google it, look up it's area code and dial a
> phone number there, and so on.
OK.
> Now, provide some material and testable evidence for any
> deity; You will be the first to ever do so, if you can.
>
> *Until you can do that*, your attempted metaphor of
> Timboktoo utterly fails.
> >>>>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't
> >>>>believe in Timbuktoo"?
>
> >>Answer requested...
>
> > Denied, it is a stupid question.
>
> I'm uncertain about the validity of this "default position" you refer to,
> though I've seen the phrase employed by several posters.
>
> Then, you are willfully ignorant;
For not agreeing with you?
OK.
It's a very hard question if one claims that an infant holds a default
position on the existence of God, and that the position is God doesn't
exist.
> If you asked a child who is ignorant of Timbuktoo "do you believe in
> Timbuktoo?" she might make a game of it and say "No!" just for fun. But
> it's
> more likely she'd say "what's Timbuktoo?" or words to that effect.
>
> There's what made your analogy collapse: You posited a CHILD.
I posited a child because the original claim was about a default position at
birth.
> Children don't do lab tests, or take long trips to places they have
> never been to on their own. Adults do all of those things, and much
> more.
>
> The default position on God is, you say, one of not believing in
> his/its/her
> existence.
>
> Exactly correct. For the reasons I have elaborated on.
>
> If we asked a child who had not yet been exposed to the notion of a God
> "do
> you believe in God?" the default position would lead him to say "No".
>
> Once again, you asked a CHILD, so your metaphor collapsed.
>
> But the possibility that a child unaware even of the idea of a God might
> positively deny God's existence seems problematic. He might say "No" for
> fun. But if he was telling the truth, it seems more likely he'd say
> "what's
> God?"
>
> Ibid.
>
> So I think that claiming there's a default position may be a
> misdescription.
>
> That's because you are, well, willfully ignorant. Which leads you to
> grossly wrong metaphors.
>
> As I said, that is your problem.
It seems to me that your getting hold of the wrong end of the stick caused
you problems here. I can only observe the car crash from afar.
DVH
I think you ought to address your complaint to the other poster who claimed
there was a default position of not believing.
> ALL beliefs come from being taught them, and/or experiencing things
> that lead to the belief.
Agreed.
> You fail to grasp that there IS a Big Difference between a denial
> of any belief, and simply NO belief in the thing in the literal first
> place.
>
> No one is born of a belief or a denial of Santa, either. To deny
> something, one *must have first heard of the thing/being in question*.
Yes.
> As NO ONE is born with a knowledge/belief in god, Odin, or B'aal,
> your position is ignorant.
> How do you know this is the case?
>
> One is tempted to say 'common sense', but one can add in the
> experience of one's own memory, and of observation of small children.
>
> But, if you wish to assert that new borns HAVE a belief and/or
> knowledge of anyone specific, please present YOUR supporting evidence for
> YOUR
> claim...
OK. Which claim are you referring to?
Kadaitcha Man
discretion. Ye dronish notable lubber, thou, lost soul, art
clay-brained. Ye stammered:
Thank you for proving my point in its entirety. You have just precisely
described, not atheism, but agnosticism, you fucking flapwitted poltroon.
--
Hillbilly Cookin'
Corn-Fed Roadkill Succotash with Trashcan Molasses
Buffaloed Billy Goat Heart Hoe Cakes with Moonshine Taters
Corn-Fed Hog Liver Stew in Salted Pondberry
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> Eunometic snipped what he clearly did not understand:
>
> > On Jan 14, 12:23 pm, fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>"Evangelical Atheists:' Pushing For What?"
> >> - Huffington Post Oct 18 2010
>
> >>"Last Friday, a New York Times headline declared:
> >>"Atheists Debate How Pushy to Be." This ongoing
> >>debate among atheists - "Just how much should
> >>we confront the religious?" - is nowhere near resolution.
>
> And given the incomprehending idiocy of atheists it
> seems we could be waiting a VERY long time for them
> to resolve their issues;
You're unable to make a coherant argument.
Atheism is not an organised movement, folks band together when the
religious nuts start wanting to teach 'eve was made from a rib' as
science or god gave israel to the jews (not they stole it from
canaanite tribes in the first place) or the whole islam will rule the
world and kaffirs must be subordinate and pay more tax beliefs.
Most of the bad things you attribute to atheism was casued by
communist ideology which used atheism as a disruptive mechanism.
> Everyon likes me, I'm a really nice guy!
In the mentaly asylum you might be top of the class.
Olrik
> On Jan 15, 9:54 am, fasgnadh<fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Olrik had his earplugs removed... :
>>
>> read more »
>
> Thank you Olrik i think you gave the best possible response to fagnuts
> and his butt buddy.
fasgnadh deserves all the scorn he gets. That imbecile has been posting
the same stuff for years.
KM, OTOH, is an amusing case, but he's been jumping the shark lately.
Olrik
>> news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>>
>>
>> They don't need to.
>>
>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
>> who have to prove their claims.
>
> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical. It is the burden of
> atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
No, it's not.
Olrik
> On Jan 15, 6:17 am, Bill Smith<n...@none.none> wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman<nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> fasgnadh<fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>>> news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>>
>>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>>
>>> They don't need to.
>>
>>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
>>> who have to prove their claims.
>>
>> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical. It is the burden of
>> atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
>>
>> HTH
>
> If something is unknown it is foolish to declare it exists or not. The
But that "god" thing could change that situation by actually showing
itself up.
Olrik
> "fasgnadh"<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> Atheism is probably more common here, from what I gather.
>>
>> 0.7% in the USA
>>
>> 2.3% worldwide.
>>
>> Non religious is significantly higher, but includes the more
>> numerous, but less stridently vocal, agnostics, freethinkers
>> undecided,the indifferent, the don't know/ don't care,
>> crystal healers, astrologers and crack heads.
>
> Thanks for the info.
Ask him for his sources.
Les Hellawell
Yet, in another post with Andre Lieven you accept this:
--<quote>--
> Then, you are very willfully ignorant. No one is born with any
> beliefs.
I think you ought to address your complaint to the other poster who
claimed there was a default position of not believing.
> ALL beliefs come from being taught them, and/or experiencing things
> that lead to the belief.
Agreed.
--</quote>--
>How do you know this is the case?
Since you agree this is the case above you have answered
your own question.
DVH
But having a default position of not believing in God means having a belief
that there's no God. What do you suppose "position" means in the context of
belief or argumentation?
Oxford English Dictionary: "position, n. A proposition or thesis laid down
or stated; something posited; a statement, an assertion; a tenet, belief,
opinion."
"An opinion, attitude, or viewpoint on a particular subject. Freq. with on."
Where is the baby that has made a statement about the existence of God?
Where is the baby that holds a tenet, belief or opinion about the existence
of God? Where is the baby that claims "I do not believe in God"?
A position is necessarily a *positive* attitude. It can be traced from the
Latin "ponere" to "the Anglo-Norman posicion, posicioun and Middle French
posicion, position, French position situation, site (late 13th cent. in Old
French), thesis, assertion, statement (late 13th cent., earliest in a legal
context; now spec. 'tenet, point of doctrine' (late 14th cent. or earlier in
this sense; rare before 1690))"
It doesn't ever mean an absence of opinion.
That is why your claim that we have a"default position we are born with of
not believing" is a misdescription.
Les Hellawell
<snip for brevity>
>>>I'm still not understanding how anybody can be born with a default
>>>position
>>>that they don't believe in God.
>>
>> Yet, in another post with Andre Lieven you accept this:
>>
>> --<quote>--
>>
>>> Then, you are very willfully ignorant. No one is born with any
>>> beliefs.
>>
>> I think you ought to address your complaint to the other poster who
>> claimed there was a default position of not believing.
>>
>>
>>> ALL beliefs come from being taught them, and/or experiencing things
>>> that lead to the belief.
>
>But having a default position of not believing in God means having a belief
>that there's no God.
Yet you agree with me, Andre and others that nobody is
born believing anything (the default) and that ALL beliefs are later
acquired (a move away from the default)
So how do you form the ridiculous conclusion that:
no belief = some belief?
>What do you suppose "position" means in the context of
>belief or argumentation?
>
>Oxford English Dictionary: "position, n. A proposition or thesis laid down
>or stated; something posited; a statement, an assertion; a tenet, belief,
>opinion."
>
>"An opinion, attitude, or viewpoint on a particular subject. Freq. with on."
It seems to miss 'where you are' or 'postioned'.
>Where is the baby that has made a statement about the existence of God?
>Where is the baby that holds a tenet, belief or opinion about the existence
>of God? Where is the baby that claims "I do not believe in God"?
Another silly question
but you have already agreed that nobody is born believing anything
and that all beliefs are later acquired so clearly a baby is in no
position to make a statement about anything.
You are getting boring with these silly questions. Go and bog
somebody else down with your silly games. I have better thing
to do (my toe nails need clipping).
DVH
> Divers people wrote
>
> <snip for brevity>
>
>>>>I'm still not understanding how anybody can be born with a default
>>>>position
>>>>that they don't believe in God.
>>>
>>> Yet, in another post with Andre Lieven you accept this:
>>>
>>> --<quote>--
>>>
>>>> Then, you are very willfully ignorant. No one is born with any
>>>> beliefs.
>>>
>>> I think you ought to address your complaint to the other poster who
>>> claimed there was a default position of not believing.
>>>
>>>
>>>> ALL beliefs come from being taught them, and/or experiencing things
>>>> that lead to the belief.
>>
>>But having a default position of not believing in God means having a
>>belief
>>that there's no God.
>
> Yet you agree with me, Andre and others that nobody is
> born believing anything (the default)
I agree that nobody is born believing anything, but detect considerable
confusion as to what a "default position" implies.
> and that ALL beliefs are later
> acquired (a move away from the default)
>
> So how do you form the ridiculous conclusion that:
>
> no belief = some belief?
I don't.
>
>
>>What do you suppose "position" means in the context of
>>belief or argumentation?
>
>>
>>Oxford English Dictionary: "position, n. A proposition or thesis laid down
>>or stated; something posited; a statement, an assertion; a tenet, belief,
>>opinion."
>>
>>"An opinion, attitude, or viewpoint on a particular subject. Freq. with
>>on."
>
> It seems to miss 'where you are' or 'postioned'.
Certainly, it's used in different ways in other contexts, and the OED
provides most of them.
But since we're talking about positions in the context of philosophical
enquiry, I selected the relevant usages.
Just as if we were talking about the word "cleave" in the context of
butchery, I would focus on its meaning "to divide or separate" rather than
its almost opposite meaning "to cling or adhere to".
>
>>Where is the baby that has made a statement about the existence of God?
>>Where is the baby that holds a tenet, belief or opinion about the
>>existence
>>of God? Where is the baby that claims "I do not believe in God"?
>
> Another silly question
>
> but you have already agreed that nobody is born believing anything
Indeed. Which is why claiming that a baby has a default position of not
believing in God is so misleading.
Because a baby has no position on God.
It neither believes nor disbelieves in God.
It is unaware of God, or the absence of God.
It cannot have a default position of not believing; it can only have a
default position of neither believing nor disbelieving.
Les Hellawell
Well stupid me asking you a question when I could not
care less what you think.
It is that same damned trick question that you have managed
to slip in yet again. A question about some unstated belief
concerning a god assumed to exist. I should have spotted it.
Nevertheless stating that you not not accept a particular
god claim as true does not mean you believe the claim is false.
that would be a different question to ask
>>
>>>What do you suppose "position" means in the context of
>>>belief or argumentation?
>>
>>>
>>>Oxford English Dictionary: "position, n. A proposition or thesis laid down
>>>or stated; something posited; a statement, an assertion; a tenet, belief,
>>>opinion."
>>>
>>>"An opinion, attitude, or viewpoint on a particular subject. Freq. with
>>>on."
>>
>> It seems to miss 'where you are' or 'postioned'.
>
>Certainly, it's used in different ways in other contexts, and the OED
>provides most of them.
>
>But since we're talking about positions in the context of philosophical
>enquiry, I selected the relevant usages.
>
>Just as if we were talking about the word "cleave" in the context of
>butchery, I would focus on its meaning "to divide or separate" rather than
>its almost opposite meaning "to cling or adhere to".
>
>>
>>>Where is the baby that has made a statement about the existence of God?
>>>Where is the baby that holds a tenet, belief or opinion about the
>>>existence
>>>of God? Where is the baby that claims "I do not believe in God"?
>>
>> Another silly question
>>
>> but you have already agreed that nobody is born believing anything
>
>Indeed. Which is why claiming that a baby has a default position of not
>believing in God is so misleading.
Which is not what we said above of course and which you have
been trying to sneak in all along.
Viz;
Andre:
>>>>> Then, you are very willfully ignorant. No one is born with any
>>>>> belief
Me
>> Yet you agree with me, Andre and others that nobody is
>> born believing anything (the default)
>Because a baby has no position on God.
>
>It neither believes nor disbelieves in God.
As we said
>
>It is unaware of God, or the absence of God.
Exactly
>It cannot have a default position of not believing; it can only have a
> default position of neither believing nor disbelieving.
Exactly, no beliefs as we said above.
Yep, I was born without any knowledge or beliefs of
any kind regarding claimed gods, and nothing has changed,
I still have no knowledge of or beliefs regarding claimed gods.
>> and that all beliefs are later acquired so clearly a baby is in no
>> position to make a statement about anything.
exactly so.
Doc Smartass
> Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> fasgnadh<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>> news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>>
>>
>> They don't need to.
>>
>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
>> who have to prove their claims.
>
> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical
*bzzzzt* Incorrect answer, but not surprising coming from a non-atheist.
Coming up on "Not Qualified to Talk About It," the Pope gives parenting
advice, Rush Limbaugh and Oprah Winfrey will be sharing weight-loss
secrets with fat kids, Orly Taitz will have legal advice, and Glenn Beck
and Sarah Palin will do a segment on mental health! Don't miss it!
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939
Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
A Christian has to be Adolf Hitler to be called militant.
All an atheist has to do is write a book. -- Tommy Holland
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
And, doing it quite badly.
The default position is 'I have no view on this'. Babies tend to
not have views on pretty much everything that isn't food or
poop.
> > NO material and testable evidence exists of the existance
> > of any claimed deity.
>
> > We can test the material evidences, plural, for Timbuktoo
> > pretty easily. Google it, look up it's area code and dial a
> > phone number there, and so on.
>
> OK.
>
> > Now, provide some material and testable evidence for any
> > deity; You will be the first to ever do so, if you can.
I note your INability to provide any.
As such, a refusal to accept your *unsupported* assertion
is the reasonable one.
> > *Until you can do that*, your attempted metaphor of
> > Timboktoo utterly fails.
Ibid.
> > >>>>Before you believed in Timbuktoo, was your default position "I don't
> > >>>>believe in Timbuktoo"?
>
> > >>Answer requested...
>
> > > Denied, it is a stupid question.
>
> > I'm uncertain about the validity of this "default position" you refer to,
> > though I've seen the phrase employed by several posters.
>
> > Then, you are willfully ignorant;
>
> For not agreeing with you?
Wrong.
> OK.
Ibid.
Again, you are willfully ignorant, in your absurd determination to
declare that a position of NO opinion/view MUST be an affirmative
position.
> > If you asked a child who is ignorant of Timbuktoo "do you believe in
> > Timbuktoo?" she might make a game of it and say "No!" just for fun. But
> > it's more likely she'd say "what's Timbuktoo?" or words to that effect.
>
> > There's what made your analogy collapse: You posited a CHILD.
>
> I posited a child because the original claim was about a default position at
> birth.
You muddied it with the fact that there IS evidence for Timbucktoo.
There ISN'T any for any deity.
> > Children don't do lab tests, or take long trips to places they have
> > never been to on their own. Adults do all of those things, and much
> > more.
>
> > The default position on God is, you say, one of not believing in
> > his/its/her existence.
>
> > Exactly correct. For the reasons I have elaborated on.
>
> > If we asked a child who had not yet been exposed to the notion of a God
> > "do you believe in God?" the default position would lead him to say "No".
>
> > Once again, you asked a CHILD, so your metaphor collapsed.
>
> > But the possibility that a child unaware even of the idea of a God might
> > positively deny God's existence seems problematic. He might say "No" for
> > fun. But if he was telling the truth, it seems more likely he'd say
> > "what's God?"
>
> > Ibid.
>
> > So I think that claiming there's a default position may be a
> > misdescription.
>
> > That's because you are, well, willfully ignorant. Which leads you to
> > grossly wrong metaphors.
>
> > As I said, that is your problem.
>
> It seems to me that your getting hold of the wrong end of the stick caused
> you problems here. I can only observe the car crash from afar.
<Massive Busted Loony Projection>
-Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel.-
I accept your full concession.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
He was right. That you ignorantly failed to understand his position is
solely your responsibility.
> > ALL beliefs come from being taught them, and/or experiencing things
> > that lead to the belief.
>
> Agreed.
So, how many such teahcings and experiencings do new borns have ?
Duh.
> > You fail to grasp that there IS a Big Difference between a denial
> > of any belief, and simply NO belief in the thing in the literal first
> > place.
>
> > No one is born of a belief or a denial of Santa, either. To deny
> > something, one *must have first heard of the thing/being in question*.
>
> Yes.
>
> > As NO ONE is born with a knowledge/belief in god, Odin, or B'aal,
> > your position is ignorant. How do you know this is the case?
>
> > One is tempted to say 'common sense', but one can add in the
> > experience of one's own memory, and of observation of small children.
>
> > But, if you wish to assert that new borns HAVE a belief and/or
> > knowledge of anyone specific, please present YOUR supporting evidence
> > for YOUR claim...
>
> OK. Which claim are you referring to?
Your claim that the issue in discussion is children having some
knowledge from which to reject the existance of a deity.
The ACTUAL argument, and the correct one, is that, since children
ARE children, *Until they are taught about deities and/or religion,
they DON'T believe in either.
Thus, they are born as non believers. QED.
Feel free to offer up supporting evidence that children/infants
HAVE a built in knowledge of any deity.
-Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.-
Chop chop !
Andre
livvy
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ick. Do you have something to say? You obviously have neither
educational nor religious education, or life experience background to
get your own life together. Message sounds like a couple of girls
getting together for a pedi.....that's all you got?
Again...ick....you should perhaps stop talking. Please.
Yap
It is not unknown....
All tragedies in this world had not seen any sky daddy doing anything,
not even lifting its bloody single finger!!!!!
Yap
Yes, you do have a more common sense approach to his ignorance.
Yap
reply?
If you ever can pick up the true meaning of life from these
conversation, you will benefit.
The benefit is yours alone, no one can snatch it away....
>
> Again...ick....you should perhaps stop talking. Please.
Scare that you will disappoint your ignorant parents who brainwashed
you?
Come on....be yourself.
Mitchell Holman
news:dacec1e7-d4c6-4ab2...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
Even by their own accounts their Sky Pixie is always
CAUSING tragedies, not preventing them.............
GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and
decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the
face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself
the greatest mass murderer in history.
EX 9:22-25 A plague of hail from the Lord strikes down everything in
the fields of Egypt both man and beast except in Goshen where the
Israelites reside.
EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.
EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death
with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't
die too quickly.
EX 32:27 "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from
gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and
every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men.
LE 26:7-8 The Lord promises the Israelites that, if they are obedient,
their enemies will "fall before your sword."
LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you
of your children."
LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will
cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and
fathers and friends.
NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men
and their households (including wives and children) because the men
had been rebellious.
NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men.
NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.
NU 21:6 Fiery serpents, sent by the Lord, kill many Israelites.
NU 21:35 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay Og "... and his
sons and all his people, until there was not one survivor left ...."
NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the
people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."
NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites
to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has
known man ...." (Note: How would it be determined which women had
known men? One can only speculate.)
Doc Smartass
> On 16 Jan, 09:10, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Or responds with just the one finger:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/BadBoyBen/1christ-middle-finger.jpg
Immortalist
<unfinished.cunt.scrub...@soc.men.groupsex.with.dwarves> wrote:
> Immortalist, thou halfpenny purse of wit, thou pigeon egg of
> discretion. Ye dronish notable lubber, thou, lost soul, art
> clay-brained. Ye stammered:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 6:17 am, Bill Smith<n...@none.none> wrote:
> >> Mitchell Holman<nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> fasgnadh<fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> >>>news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>
> >>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>
> >>> They don't need to.
>
> >>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
> >>> who have to prove their claims.
>
> >> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical. It is the burden of
> >> atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
>
> >> HTH
>
> > If something is unknown it is foolish to declare it exists or not. The
> > Atheist cannot claim that God either exists or not, it is unknown.
>
> Thank you for proving my point in its entirety.
How did it do that?
> You have just precisely
> described, not atheism, but agnosticism, you fucking flapwitted poltroon.
>
Not necessarily since I am describing a larger category of knowing. If
one cannot know the outcome of a sports event it is because it cannot
be determined either way or the other. This isn't necessarily
agnosticism but "determinability" in general. Agnostisim only applies
to religious issues of determination.
For example;
Antinomies are contradictions that Kant believed follow necessarily
from our attempts to conceive the nature of transcendent reality. Kant
thought the Antinomies cannot be resolved and that attempts to
conceive the transcendent will always produce irresolvable
contradictions. This does not mean that there is no transcendent or
that attempts to conceive the transcendent are meaningless. They are,
just as Kant said, necessitated by reason itself. It does mean,
however, that the transcendent defeats rational representation.
Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the euthanasia of pure
reason' (AKA skepticism).
They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.
An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=antinomy+kant
Immortalist
So could the Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves) which
is a fictional female deity in the form of a unicorn, provide evidence
for its existence by showing up. The goddess was invented at the
usenet discussion group alt.atheism as an alternative to other parody
deities like Church of the SubGenius "J.R. Bob Dobbs" or Eris of
the Discordianism. Quoting from the alt.atheism FAQ:
Like most Goddesses, she's invisible and highly unlikely to exist.
However, there is much argument as to her exact colour, her shape and
size, and other properties of her nonexistence. She burns with anger
against theists, and allegedly grinds them beneath her holy hooves.
The "believers" famous sayings about faith in the invisible pink
unicorn is that, like other religions, it is founded in science and
faith. Science - that states that she must be invisible, since we
cannot see her. Faith - because we know in our heart that the
invisible pink unicorn exists. This is of course a parody of the
theological reasoning of other religions.
Immortalist
...Causes and effects are discovered, not by reason but through
experience, when we find that particular objects are constantly
conjoined with one another. We tend to overlook this because most
ordinary causal judgments are so familiar; we've made them so many
times that our judgment seems immediate. But when we consider the
matter, we realize that “an (absolutely) unexperienced reasoner could
be no reasoner at all” (EHU, 45n). Even in applied mathematics, where
we use abstract reasoning and geometrical methods to apply principles
we regard as laws to particular cases in order to derive further
principles as consequences of these laws, the discovery of the
original law itself was due to experience and observation, not to a
priori reasoning.
Even after we have experience of causal connections, our conclusions
from those experiences aren't based on any reasoning or on any other
process of the understanding. They are based on our past experiences
of similar cases, without which we could draw no conclusions at all.
But this leaves us without any link between the past and the future.
How can we justify extending our conclusions from past observation and
experience to the future? The connection between a proposition that
summarizes past experience and one that predicts what will occur at
some future time is surely not an intuitive connection; it needs to be
established by reasoning or argument.
Kadaitcha Man
his grave immediately. Ye pimply heap of wrath, thou art gap-toothed
and droning. Ye talked incoherently:
> ....Causes and effects are discovered, not by reason but through
> experience
<aside>
There goes fully half the scientific method out the window.
--
Hillbilly Cookin'
Bathtub Gin Deer Heart Grits with Tin Can Beet Greens
Bourbon Beef Jerky Burgoo with Pulled Maple Syrup
Moonshine Coon Hoe Cakes with Engine Smoked Turnip Greens
Kadaitcha Man
from any dram of mercy. Ye moronic sorrowful issue, thou cankered
logger-headed and unpolished groom. Ye fizzled:
> On Jan 15, 6:59 pm, Kadaitcha Man
> <unfinished.cunt.scrub...@soc.men.groupsex.with.dwarves> wrote:
>> Immortalist, thou halfpenny purse of wit, thou pigeon egg of
>> discretion. Ye dronish notable lubber, thou, lost soul, art
>> clay-brained. Ye stammered:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 6:17 am, Bill Smith<n...@none.none> wrote:
>>>> Mitchell Holman<nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> fasgnadh<fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>>>>> news:4D318A54...@yahoo.com.au:
>>
>>>>>> Atheists show evidence for their claims?
>>
>>>>> They don't need to.
>>
>>>>> Atheism is the default, it is the religionists
>>>>> who have to prove their claims.
>>
>>>> Wrong. Atheism is a priori irrational and illogical. It is the burden of
>>>> atheists to prove that their atheism is rational.
>>
>>>> HTH
>>
>>> If something is unknown it is foolish to declare it exists or not. The
>>> Atheist cannot claim that God either exists or not, it is unknown.
>>
>> Thank you for proving my point in its entirety.
>
> How did it do that?
Because you precisely described, not atheism, but agnosticism, you
fucking flapwitted poltroon. There are any number of fuckwit alt.atheism
atheists who declare that no gods exist. I don't see you ever correcting
them. Why is that, chopfuck?
>> You have just precisely
>> described, not atheism, but agnosticism, you fucking flapwitted poltroon.
> Not necessarily since I am describing a larger category of knowing...
> Agnostisim only applies to religious issues of determination.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're full of shit. Whatever you do don't take a
laxative; all that will be left of you is a gigantic pile of shit on one
side and your horribly wrinkled skin bag on the other.
--
Hillbilly Cookin'
Stewed Ground Hog Heart Pudding with Fried Cheetos
Engine Smoked Coyote Heart Dumplings with Country Fried Pralines
Potted Gopher Succotash with Tin Can Velveeta
fasgnadh
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:38:56 -0000, "DVH"<d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
>> "Christopher A. Lee"<ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:9bj0j696ekjl1pkh9...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:28:01 -0000, "DVH"<d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "fasgnadh"<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:4D2FA575...@yahoo.com.au...
>>>>
>>>>> Carl Sagan: "The chief deficiency I see in the
>>>>> skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs.
>>>>> Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on
>>>>> the truth; that those other people who believe
>>>>> in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that
>>>>> if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and
>>>>> if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive.
>>>>> It does not get our message across. It condemns
>>>>> us to permanent minority status."
>>>>
>>>> As long as an atheist feels the need to "get a message across" he's
>>>> barking
>>>> up the wrong tree.
>>>
>>> The only message we try to get across, is in response to your bullying
>>> and lies.
>>>
>>>> Jefferson: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
>>>> gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
>>>
>>> If only the fundamentalists and evangelicals could take that advice.
>>>
>>> We wouldn't give a flying fuck what you believe if you kept it inside
>>> your religion.
>>
>> You do walk into traps of your own making.
>
> You lie yet again.
>
>> What religion is my religion?
>
> Irrelevant.
No it's not, you made an accusation but you can't back up your LIES.
> Just keep your bullshit to yourself and there will be no reaction.
Another lie, you can't show any bullshit from him, so your
action in lying about him is NOT a reaction, YOU are the aggressor.
>>>
>>> It's your business.
>>>
>>> But you don't.
>>>
>>> You make it our business when you impose it
>>
>> Show where I've imposed religion...
>
> More deliberate "misunderstanding".
i.e. Chris Lee can't back up his allegations, he's a LIAR.
> It's a standard tactic
Yes you do it all the time.
>>> and when you show bigotry
>>> and discrimination against those who don't believe as you do.
>>>
>>> Especially when you try to teach its myths and legends as facts to our
>>> kids.
>>
>> Show where I've done that...
He can't, ... he's an
> Idiot.
>
--
---------
alt.atheism FAQ:
http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.atheism/msg/7c0978c14fd4ed37?hl=en&dmode=source
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
“Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!”
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
fasgnadh
Ask me yourself, you gutless cowardly liar and slanderer...
A.R.I.S. the most reliable, authoritative, random sample survey
in the USA:
# Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
# -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
# fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
#
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups:
# alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,aus.politics,
# alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
#
# American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
#
# "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
#
# 2001 2008
#
# Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)
#
# Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
#
# Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
#
# Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
#
#
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!
#
#
# 0.7% of Americans!! B^D
#
#
# EVEN THE AGNOSTICS BEAT YOU!!! **AND** they grew FASTER!!!! B^D
A pathetic 719,000 increase in 7 years!!!
During that period there were 300,000,000 new believers in China
Alone! B^D
Atheism is in relative DECLINE, and it is terminal! B^]
Atheists are only 4% of non-believers
96% of non-believers EXPLICITLY reject atheism!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/aris030609.pdf
Les Hellawell
wrote:
<snip>
>A.R.I.S. the most reliable, authoritative, random sample survey
>in the USA:
Who says? The following looks a somewhat muddled questionaire
to me as it includes 'agnostic' and 'atheist' as if they were
religions!
In any case, since
non-religious = not theist = atheist it was all that was needed
anyway.
THe last random sample in the UK put non-religion at over
40% BTW. What was the figures for Aus?
># Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
spoken like a true theist. A theist who is deluding himself!
># -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
># fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
It is the trend that matters here. How many atheist were in the
world in 1914? It is the total of people that no longer practise
or participate in religion that interest me the most. These are
people that are not going to indoctrinate their children
into religion or take them to churches. Religion is dying in the
west and it is dying fast.
It matters not whether you call us atheist or non-religious
that is a fact you cannot pretend is not happening.
>#
># From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
># Newsgroups:
># alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,aus.politics,
># alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
># Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
># Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
>#
># American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
>#
># "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
>#
># 2001 2008
>#
># Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)
>#
># Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
>#
># Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
>#
># Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
>#
>#
Since
no religion = not theist = atheists that is over 15% of people that
are atheist up 0.9% in seven years. Are the atheist-agnostics
and theist-agnostics listed twice? For example did atheist-agnostics
tick 'agnostic' and 'non-religious' and 'atheist' or were they only
given one choice and therefore flawed results?
I just filled in our census form this morning and ticked 'no
religion'. There was no separate atheist option, none was needed.
There was also no 'agnostic' option as that is not a religion.
>#
># BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!
Bravado
>#
># 0.7% of Americans!! B^D
>#
>#
># EVEN THE AGNOSTICS BEAT YOU!!! **AND** they grew FASTER!!!! B^D
>
>
>A pathetic 719,000 increase in 7 years!!!
Even if true, so what? It matters not to us what other people do
or do not believe it is none of our business. I do not believe
and that is all that matters to me. Obviously I am pleased to
see religion continue to decline in the USA, now up to 16% AND
RISING but it not as despereratly important to me as it seems to be to
you.
>During that period there were 300,000,000 new believers in China
>Alone! B^D
Or was that 300m now free to admit they were believers
all along?
If you have to go to China to find new believers it just goes
to show how desperate you are at seeing religion decline in
the west (and for some reason the USA in particular) Who cares
what the Chinese believe round the other side of the worl?
I don't, it is not my business what the Chinese of Chileans
believe
Heck I could not even care less what my next door neighbour
believes (and do not know) , it is none of my business just as our
absence of belief is none of yours.
>Atheism is in relative DECLINE, and it is terminal! B^]
You wish but again so what? There will always
be one atheist left as long as I live and that is what
matters to me. But you know it is not true here
in the west.
>Atheists are only 4% of non-believers
>96% of non-believers EXPLICITLY reject atheism!
I ticked 'no religion' this morning in our census.
Does that mean I reject being atheist? No it means I
confirmed that I was not a theist.
If you want to pretend otherwise, fine, I do not
care. It does not even matter to me how many
non theists there are in the world either except
the fewer there are the less likely they will
attempt to persecute and attack me. You are
entirely free to believe whatever you like (or
not) I you want to believe we are in decline, enjoy :-)
You are, of course only discussing the USA, things
are much different in Europe and in Australian as
I am sure you well know.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/aris030609.pdf
Pepsi
The context should, at least, be correctly headlined:
People who believe ancient fairy tales (that have absolutely no valid
support) are real
- & -
people who do not follow the delusion that fairy tales and fairy tale
characters are real.
fasgnadh
> <snip>
> On 8/03/2011 10:35 PM, fasgnadh wrote:
>> On 16/01/2011 5:04 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-15 12:58, DVH wrote:
>>>> "fasgnadh"<fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> Atheism is probably more common here, from what I gather.
>>>>>
>>>>> 0.7% in the USA
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.3% worldwide.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non religious is significantly higher, but includes the more
>>>>> numerous, but less stridently vocal, agnostics, freethinkers
>>>>> undecided,the indifferent, the don't know/ don't care,
>>>>> crystal healers, astrologers and crack heads.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the info.
>>>
>>> Ask him for his sources.
>>
>> Ask me yourself, you gutless cowardly liar and slanderer...
>>
>> A.R.I.S. the most reliable, authoritative, random sample survey
>> in the USA:
>
> Who says?
Name another statistically valid, random sample survey which
gave people the ability to distinguish, freely, anonymously, without
fear, and CHOOSE which term BEST DESCRIBED them.
i.e. something rare, allowing people to say "I'm not RELIGIOUS,
but I'm definitely NOT an atheist" All us AGNOSTICS to start with,
and a SHITLOAD of others as well.. the VAST MAJORITY OF NON-RELIGIOUS: :
>> # Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
>> # -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
>> # fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
>> #
>> # From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
>> # Newsgroups:
>> # alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,aus.politics,
>> # alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
>> # Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>> # Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
>> #
>> # American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
>> #
>> # "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
>> #
>> # 2001 2008
>> #
>> # Non- religious 29,481,000 (14.1%) 34,169,000 (15%)
>> #
>> # Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
>> #
>> # Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
>> #
>> # Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
>> #
> non-religious = not theist = atheist it was all that was needed
> anyway.
Typical of the self-deluding atheists! B^D
The 34,169,000 non-religious category was broken down
into sub-categories, of which those who self-identified as ATHEIST
were a mere 4% 96% of that group, given a choice which distinguished
WHAT KIND of NON-RELIGIOUS they are, REJECTED atheism! B^]
Suck it up you arrogant, self- inflated, delusional fuckwits!
>> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!
Yes, Helawell's histrionics are funny, he wants to pretend that
all the agnostics, secular humanists, Jeddi, Satanists, "don't-
care, don't want to think about the question", Occultists, New Age
Crystal healers, WHO DELIBERATELY DID NOT IDENTIFY AS ATHEISTS
should be considered as atheists because atheists like Les the Liar like
to TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK! B^D
They did so in every atheist TYRANNY and the pathetic sad sacks are
STILL TRYING TO DO SO NOW!
Man, we knew their numbers are PATHETICALLY small, but this bullshit
attempt to claim people who CLEARLY DO NOT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED with
these thugs, is almost as crazy as their claim 'babies are atheists"..
and trees? rocks? dog shit? that could get you a lot more 'members'
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAA
GIVEN A CHOICE, NINETY SIX PERCENT OF PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY HAVE NO
OPINION, DON'T CARE, DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT, DON'T THINK THERE
IS AN ANSWER, HAVE OTHER BELIEFS, or KNOW THEY ARE AGNOSTICS, et al,
EXPLICITLY REJECT THE OPTION To BE CLASSED AS ATHEISTS!!!!!!!
So listen, you pocket Nazis, there is a MESSAGE here from teh VAST
MAJORITY of non-believers... I AM NOT AN ATHEIST, I am an AGNOSTIC,
and there are MORE OF US THAT THERE ARE OF YOU JACKBOOTED FUCKWITS!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAA
We don't go telling you that "you must really be agnostics", so stop
pushing YOUR DELUDED BELIEF THAT WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU,
We AREN'T! And the only survey which is DETAILED enough to give people
the FREEDOM TO BE VERY SPECIFIC shows that ATHEISM is
OPENLY REJECTED, by NINETY SIX PERCENT of non believers..
so you athei-shit morons CAN GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!
>> #
>> # 0.7% of Americans!! B^D
>> #
>> #
>> # EVEN THE AGNOSTICS BEAT YOU!!! **AND** they grew FASTER!!!! B^D
>>
>>
>> A pathetic 719,000 increase in 7 years!!!
>>
>>
>> During that period there were 300,000,000 new believers in China
>> Alone! B^D
>>
>> Atheism is in relative DECLINE, and it is terminal! B^]
>>
>>
>> Atheists are only 4% of non-believers
>> 96% of non-believers EXPLICITLY reject atheism!
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/documents/aris030609.pdf
>
> It is the trend that matters here.
"At the dawn of the 20th Century approximately one half of the world's
population identified itself as either Muslim, Catholic, Protestant,
Hindu or Buddhist, and 100 years of secularism, and technological
advancement, and scientific progress later and that number is now
two thirds.
So, for those of you who enjoy beginning coffee shop
conversations with "The Death of God" .. it's time to change
the subject! It's time to talk about something else , because
it's not happening at all.
People are becoming more religious, not less religious,
and religion itself is also evolving"
- Dr Reza Aslan
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2929354.htm
fasgnadh
> "Les Hellawell"<l...@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:sdmcn6l0n24sqq4c1...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 22:35:11 +1100, fasgnadh<fasg...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A.R.I.S. the most reliable, authoritative, random sample survey
>>> in the USA:
>>> # Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
>>> # -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
>>> # fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
>>
You mean you don't know? B^D
Clearly the numbers were too small to even be bothered with! B^D
Then they took over Russia and created the Union of Savage Slaughter and
Repression(USSR) Mao's Great Leap Backward and the Cultural Devolution,
and Pol Pot's genocidal tyranny... killing over 70,000,000
people and assigning atheism to the dustbin of CATASTROPHICALLY FAILED
CLUSTER-FUCKS!!!
Since then over 300,000,000 former atheists have become believers
in just ONE COUNTRY, China!
>> that is a fact you cannot pretend is not happening.
>
> The context should, at least, be correctly headlined:
>
> People who believe ancient fairy tales (that have absolutely no valid
> support)
That would be atheistic communism, a complete failure, as history shows.
> people who do not follow the delusion that fairy tales and fairy tale
> characters are real.
and have abandoned the delusional atheist bullshitters, Lenin, Mao,
Stalin, Pol Pot.. have prospered, and evolved the free open tolerant
progressive SECULAR DEMOCRACIES which have IN EVERY CASE, been built by
MAJORITY RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, (The USA, sole superpower, Canada,
Australia, all the European countries, etc etc) and which NO ATHEIST
SHITHOLE REGIME ever managed to produce...
Shit, EVEN THE ATHEISTS **CHOOSE** to live in the majority religious
democracies, not in any atheist regime!!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAA
Their ACTIONS speak louder than any of their lying weasel words!
Q.E.D.