Praying man let his daughter die
Sapient Fridge
"A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
believed God could heal his daughter.
She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.
"
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <jyzn57UA...@spamsights.org>):
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>
> "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
> daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>
> The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
> believed God could heal his daughter.
>
> She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
> rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.
> "
>
Sounds like evolution at work to me. If he doesn't have any other children,
give him a Darwin Award.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Boikat
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 06:02:40 -0400, Sapient Fridge wrote
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>
> > "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
> > daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>
> > The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
> > believed God could heal his daughter.
>
> > She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
> > rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.
> > "
That's "Fundy Science" for you.
>
> Sounds like evolution at work to me. If he doesn't have any other children,
> give him a Darwin Award.
He should get life in prison, and those who sat arround his dying
daughter and prayed should also be charged and tried with accessory to
murder.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<1689a7db-455d-471b...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
Well, that too. That's one reason for the Darwin Award: he's gonna be in
prison for the rest of his life, no more children, so if this was his only
one, he has eliminated himself from the gene pool. And a good thing, too.
sasam2
Typical of the Christian Science Church. As a child my wife had to
live unaided through evenings of asthma attacks, since her parents
were members of that group. They take "positive thinking" a bit too
far.
Better to get her to hospital and then pray around her bed.
Cheers
Sam
Ron O
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 07:51:42 -0400, Boikat wrote
> (in article
Up to 25 years isn't life in prison, and stupidity isn't much of a
crime. It just has very negative results once in a while. I do not
know how you evaluate mental competence in a trial like this. Should
the people that gave this person the information that led him to his
stupid act be held responsible? In some of the established faith
healing churches like Christian Science the upper management claims
that it is up to the individual whether to seek medical help or not,
so they hide behind that disclaimer while preaching something else. I
am undecided as to whether they should be allowed to do that. People
have religious rights, but the incompetent or simply ignorant (like
children) have rights too. I see no valid reason why physical
problems should not be identified and dealt with in a non metaphysical
way. My guess is that if this father suffered a compound fracture
that he would have no problem going to the emergency room to stop the
bleeding and reset the bone, and yet he would not do that for his
daughter when her pancreas stopped working properly. He has to live
with that for the rest of his life.
Ron Okimoto
ed wolf
> Sounds like evolution at work to me. If he doesn't have any other children,
> give him a Darwin Award.
I ´m afraid Darwin has little or nothing to do with it. Maybe these
people where no dumber than a lot of loving and friendly people
that also are no rocket scientists, but treat their kids with love
and understanding, and go to doctors. Collective mania of all
sorts keeps coming up all through history. I wonder if any gene
would make you immune, or susceptible.
Seems to be a case for social, economical, psychological
explanations. If it was in the genes, you could get rid of religion
by keeping the most ardent believers in monasteries, or busy
day and night posting in Usenet.groups.
It wont be that easy, I guess
regards
ed
harry k
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 06:02:40 -0400, Sapient Fridge wrote
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>
> > "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
> > daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>
> > The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
> > believed God could heal his daughter.
>
> > She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
> > rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.
> > "
>
> Sounds like evolution at work to me. If he doesn't have any other children,
> give him a Darwin Award.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Sounds like their prayers were answered. Too bad the answer seems to
have been "NO!".
Never underestimate the stupidity of a fundy.
Harry K
Chris
I think different rules should apply when you are talking about the
welfare of a minor. The poor kid suffered horribly before she died- it
takes a long time to die from diabetes, and it's a horrible way to go.
Chris
Louann Miller
@j21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> My guess is that if this father suffered a compound fracture
> that he would have no problem going to the emergency room to stop the
> bleeding and reset the bone, and yet he would not do that for his
> daughter when her pancreas stopped working properly. He has to live
> with that for the rest of his life.
Sadly I suspect he has it twisted around in his head as besieged virtue
rather than murder by stupidity. I'd much rather have HER live the rest of
her life.
Walter Bushell
<d948c88f-47d9-4332...@k30g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
ed wolf <eduar...@gmx.net> wrote:
OTOH, I've heard of people for whom prayer for their children is A OK,
but should they get a toothache off to the dentist.
J. J. Lodder
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>
> "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
> daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>
> The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
> believed God could heal his daughter.
>
> She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
> rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.
> "
Strange, for Wisconsin has a state law
that currently exempts faith healing practices
from prosecution for child neglect and abuse.
Have they changed it?
Jan
Ron O
Minors have rights too. This court decision agrees with that.
Responsibility is more elusive. My opinion is that this guy isn't
solely responsible. Accessories would be the people that recommended
the prayer treatment and encouraged him to keep at it as his daughter
slowly wasted away. It does seem that it was this guys ultimate
decision, but you would open up another can of worms if you tried to
demonstrate the responsibility of others in this matter. Was he
mentally capable of making this decision when it came to what he was
being told about the requirements of his religion? Did the people
that were recommending prayer understand how incompetent he was? Are
they mentally incompetent in this regard themselves? I don't know how
you would sort it all out.
This will go to the higher courts. My guess that it will be added to
other cases and that the law will permit more intervention in these
cases in the future.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
> Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in news:4c9b735f-6b5a-4d12-aa5a-dd58aa75f3b3
One thing that I hope is that he isn't held up as some type of martyr
by his church. They should use him as an example of going too far.
When a simple insulin shot would save the child you might want to try
that and prayer.
Ron Okimoto
Boikat
That's insane.
>
> Have they changed it?
If they haven't, they should.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<73e0192e-0c97-45cf...@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>):
She might not even have needed insulin. Drugs such as metformin and
glipizide, available at any local Walgreen's or Walmart or CVS, and costing
the princely sum of US$4 for a month's supply, might have been sufficient.
Actos is, I think, somewhat more expensive, on a level with the cost of
insulin, in fact, but that also should have been easily available, and would
not have required any needles. Just one pill per day. And I'm sure that there
are many other such drugs, those are just the ones I could find by doing a
quick Google.
She died for the want of US$50/year or so worth of drugs, maybe as much as
$100 or so if she had to take two pills. That's criminally negligent homicide
of a minor right there. The _least_ I'd give him would be life without
parole.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<5944929e-f861-4366...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>):
Given that it's Lodder saying so, you might want to verify it. Lodder tends
to make things up, especially when the stuff he makes up makes those evil
Anglo-Americans look bad.
I _think_ that there are some state laws on the subject in several states,
possibly including Wisconsin, but I'm not sure that he has accurately stated
how those laws would apply. Perhaps he could cite the laws in question?
Cue crickets.
Burkhard
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 16:20:07 -0400, Boikat wrote
> (in article
There are two relevant provisions:
48.981(3)(c)4.
4. The county department or, in a county having a population of
500,000 or more, the department or a licensed child welfare agency
under contract with the department shall determine, within 60 days
after receipt of a report that the county department, department, or
licensed child welfare agency investigates under subd. 1., whether
abuse or neglect has occurred or is likely to occur. The determination
shall be based on a preponderance of the evidence produced by the
investigation. A determination that abuse or neglect has occurred may
not be based solely on the fact that the child's parent, guardian, or
legal custodian in good faith selects and relies on prayer or other
religious means for treatment of disease or for remedial care of the
child. In making a determination that emotional damage has occurred,
the county department or, in a county having a population of 500,000
or more, the department or a licensed child welfare agency under
contract with the department shall give due regard to the culture of
the subjects. This subdivision does not prohibit a court from ordering
medical services for the child if the child's health requires it.
Note: The decision must not be SOLELY based on faith healing. The next
sentence mentions "emotional damage" which for me indicates a
situation where a child suffered longer than necessary from an
illness, but recovered without lasting physical damage.
The other provision from the state code is:
448.03(6)
(6) Practice of Christian Science. No law of this state regulating the
practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with
the practice of Christian Science. A person who elects Christian
Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for the
cure of disease may not be compelled to submit to medical or surgical
treatment.
Note: this only applies to adults choosing their OWN treatment.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<0ea2a320-21c1-47dc...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
Ah. That's what I thought might be the case. As I read it, this means that
faith healing is not _exempt_... but that it's not automatic that there's a
case just because faith healing was involved. There has to be an actual
investigation to find out what really happened, and charges, if any, would be
brought _following the investigation_.
>
> Note: The decision must not be SOLELY based on faith healing. The next
> sentence mentions "emotional damage" which for me indicates a
> situation where a child suffered longer than necessary from an
> illness, but recovered without lasting physical damage.
If I'm reading this right, then 'faith healers' can be prosecuted if
something went wrong. Such as, oh, the child dropping dead. Perhaps I'm
reading it wrong? Clarification from someone who actually knows the law is
invited.
>
> The other provision from the state code is:
>
> 448.03(6)
> (6) Practice of Christian Science. No law of this state regulating the
> practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with
> the practice of Christian Science. A person who elects Christian
> Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for the
> cure of disease may not be compelled to submit to medical or surgical
> treatment.
>
> Note: this only applies to adults choosing their OWN treatment.
>
Well, if _adults_ want to commit slow suicide, by all means let them.
Burkhard
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 18:08:49 -0400, Burkhard wrote
> (in article
damage, which would be actionable if not done using a faith healer
(say doing absolutely nothing and wait till things get better out of a
general distrust of medicine), but they can be prosecuted if there is
lasting physical damage, and of course also in case of death.
Note however also that this law is not about faith healers at all, but
about parents who use them instead of doctors. If you want to know if
the healer himself incurs liability, you'd need to find out first if
Wisconsin has a legal duty to rescue, which I would find surprising
Desertphile
All states in the USA have occult-based exemptions under the
several Child Protection Acts passed during the 1970s and 1980s.
Details are found in "Deadly Blessings" written by Richard J.
Brenneman. Federal law states that each state must have an occult
exception to its anti-child abuse laws before each state may
receive federal funding to combat child abuse. Freaky, but true.
The Church of Christ Christian worked hard and paid enormous sums
of money to pass this law, to protect their "Practitioners" from
child abuse, child neglect, and from practicing "medicine" without
a license.
The laws in most states use the phrase "... or other remedial
aid...." when the laws mandate that parents and/or guardians are
required to acquire medical treatment for minors under their care.
"Other remedial care" includes praying or other occult ritual,
which was the whole point of the exemption requirement.
Much of this has changed since the 1980s when the Davies in
Colorado cheerfully allowed their daughter to die in horrible
screaming agony as a Christanic human sacrifice to their gods.
Since the mid 1990s district attorneys have been ignoring the
exemption clauses in their states' child protection laws, and they
have been prosecuting deaths due to parental neglect of children.
> Jan
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Paul Ciszek
In article <h551p...@news5.newsguy.com>,
J.J. O'Shea <no....@just.go.net> wrote:
>
>She might not even have needed insulin. Drugs such as metformin and
>glipizide, available at any local Walgreen's or Walmart or CVS, and costing
>the princely sum of US$4 for a month's supply, might have been sufficient.
Metformin requires a prescription; insulin, interestingly, does not.
(The syringes on the other hand, *do*.) A diabetic child is more likely
to be type I requiring insulin than type II (insulin insensitive) for
which Metformin is helpful.
I am not a doctor, but I do take Metformin.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Paul Ciszek
In article <9s8c7593tcjaao3jl...@4ax.com>,
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>
>Much of this has changed since the 1980s when the Davies in
>Colorado cheerfully allowed their daughter to die in horrible
>screaming agony as a Christanic human sacrifice to their gods.
Could you point me to that case? I have tried googling on "Child
neglect davie Colorado" but google figures 3 out of 4 terms matched
is good enough, even when I put "+" in front of them.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h55b9o$t39$2...@reader1.panix.com>):
>
> In article <h551p...@news5.newsguy.com>,
> J.J. O'Shea <no....@just.go.net> wrote:
>>
>> She might not even have needed insulin. Drugs such as metformin and
>> glipizide, available at any local Walgreen's or Walmart or CVS, and costing
>> the princely sum of US$4 for a month's supply, might have been sufficient.
>
> Metformin requires a prescription; insulin, interestingly, does not.
> (The syringes on the other hand, *do*.) A diabetic child is more likely
> to be type I requiring insulin than type II (insulin insensitive) for
> which Metformin is helpful.
>
> I am not a doctor, but I do take Metformin.
>
>
Ah. Thanks for the info.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<80763896-ee36-40d7...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
>> If I'm reading this right, then 'faith healers' can be prosecuted if
>> something went wrong. Such as, oh, the child dropping dead. Perhaps I'm
>> reading it wrong? Clarification from someone who actually knows the law is
>> invited.
>>
> I'd say that is broadly right. They seem to be exempt from some
> damage, which would be actionable if not done using a faith healer
> (say doing absolutely nothing and wait till things get better out of a
> general distrust of medicine), but they can be prosecuted if there is
> lasting physical damage, and of course also in case of death.
>
> Note however also that this law is not about faith healers at all, but
> about parents who use them instead of doctors. If you want to know if
> the healer himself incurs liability, you'd need to find out first if
> Wisconsin has a legal duty to rescue, which I would find surprising
So the 'faith healer' himself is probably in the clear, but the parents
should be looking at an extended stay in the Gray Bar Hotel? I don't have a
problem with that. I'd _like_ the 'healer' to have a little
government-sponsored vacation, but it's the parents who are really at fault
and deserve to have the book thrown at them.
Free Lunch
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote in talk.origins:
Wisconsin does have a law that exempts Christian Science practioners and
other such faith healers from prosecution in the case of adults. The few
remaining acolytes of Mary Baker Eddy have actually supported a change
in the law we have to make it clear that parents are responsible for
medical care for children, or that's the way the press reported it.
Wombat
When I heard this on the BBC radio news yesterday it was reported that
he claimed going to a doctor would have meant denying God.
Wombat
Nashton
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>
> "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
> daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>
> The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
> believed God could heal his daughter.
>
> She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
> rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed. "
Religion does not cure stupidity.
Ron O
I wonder how he follows through with that argument considering that he
did not deny God, and the worst still happened. Who's faith did he
sacrifice her for? Abraham did not kill Issac. I've seen that excuse
used for this type of test of faith. In a modern rendition the local
government would likely be the angel that made sure that Abraham did
not kill his son. They failed in this case.
http://kids.christiansunite.com/Bible_Stories/Bible_Story_304.shtml.
Ron Okimoto
Burkhard
wrote:
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>
> > > "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
> > > daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>
> > > The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
> > > believed God could heal his daughter.
>
> > > She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
> > > rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.
> > Strange, for Wisconsin has a state law
> > that currently exempts faith healing practices
> > from prosecution for child neglect and abuse.
>
> > Have they changed it?
>
> All states in the USA have occult-based exemptions under the
> several Child Protection Acts passed during the 1970s and 1980s.
> Details are found in "Deadly Blessings" written by Richard J.
> Brenneman. Federal law states that each state must have an occult
> exception to its anti-child abuse laws before each state may
> receive federal funding to combat child abuse.
many thanks, that adds valuable context to what I knew about such laws
in individual states!
Greg G.
I saw that in the first article I read linked from Google News to a
Wisconsin paper. He said that taking the child to a doctor would be
putting the doctor before God. Also in the article, he was quoted as
saying that he didn't realize she was seriously ill. I was wondering
if that meant that if he thought she was seriously ill, that he would
have put the doctors before God.
Desertphile
Religion causes stupidity.
Desertphile
The Scientology crime synduicate claims the same thing--- in
public. In private they punish customers who acquire medical
services. Customers who are sick and/or have diseases are "down
stat," and there are Scientology "run downs" to cure them: if a
customer goes to a doctor instead of paying Scientology Inc. for
the "run down," the customer is faced with being declared as
"suppressive person."
Nashton
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:09:48 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> Sapient Fridge wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>>>
>>> "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
>>> daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>>>
>>> The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
>>> believed God could heal his daughter.
>>>
>>> She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
>>> rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed. "
>
>> Religion does not cure stupidity.
>
> Religion causes stupidity.
>
>
What's your religion?
John Stockwell
It seems to give stupidity a raison d'etre.
el cid
> On Aug 3, 5:09 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>
> > Sapient Fridge wrote:
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>
> > > "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
> > > daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>
> > > The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
> > > believed God could heal his daughter.
>
> > > She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
> > > rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed. "
So her disease led to her death.
Aspirin, snake oil, homeopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic would
not have helped her. A dietitian might have. Helped that is.
> > Religion does not cure stupidity.
Odd comment. The girl did not die of stupidity. Many children
in the identical environment readily survive. It was the
diabetes, not the stupidity.
> It seems to give stupidity a raison d'etre.
Was one needed? I find that an unsupportable statement.
Harboring and sheltering perhaps but one might look
around this newsgroup and find that stupidity apparently
thrives just as well among certain militant atheists.
(though the ones I'm thinking of are rather religious
in their atheism)
Desertphile
No.
Desertphile
Ciszek) wrote:
>
> In article <9s8c7593tcjaao3jl...@4ax.com>,
> Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> >
> >Much of this has changed since the 1980s when the Davies in
> >Colorado cheerfully allowed their daughter to die in horrible
> >screaming agony as a Christanic human sacrifice to their gods.
> Could you point me to that case? I have tried googling on "Child
> neglect davie Colorado" but google figures 3 out of 4 terms matched
> is good enough, even when I put "+" in front of them.
I cannot find any mention of the case on the 'net. How very odd.
It was either Davis or Davies.
However, other cases at the time will also serve as examples. Such
as the Glasers in California in 1990: the Glasers allowe their
child to die, and they were found to be "not guilty" by the judge.
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 08:09:48 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>> Sapient Fridge wrote:
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm
>> >
>> > "A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old
>> > daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.
>> >
>> > The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he
>> > believed God could heal his daughter.
>> >
>> > She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in
>> > rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed. "
>
>> Religion does not cure stupidity.
>
>Religion causes stupidity.
Or at the very least, attracts stupidity.
--
Bob.
Reentrant
>> What's your religion?
>
> No.
While in hospital recently I overheard a nurse going through the admissions
form with a patient and when she asked him his religion, he replied
"normal".
--
Reentrant
Nomen Publicus
> answer, or as an extremely stupid one.
>
"none" seems to work find most of the time. However I have been asked if I
mean nonconformist :-)
--
Clarence Darrow: I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
Nashton
He was probably Christian.
Burkhard
snex
> On Aug 3, 12:22 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > It seems to give stupidity a raison d'etre.
>
> Was one needed? I find that an unsupportable statement.
> Harboring and sheltering perhaps but one might look
> around this newsgroup and find that stupidity apparently
> thrives just as well among certain militant atheists.
> (though the ones I'm thinking of are rather religious
> in their atheism)
not a single one of these alleged "militant" (which of us have
advocated violence, again?) atheists would remain atheists if you
could simply present some decent evidence that your religious
assertions were true.
so why do you insist on lying about us?
el cid
In English, the language I am currently using, militant
as an adjective is not exclusive to those who advocate
violence or bear arms. It describes those who are
aggressively active in their cause. So there is
not lie in calling strongly active advocates of
atheism militants and your response defines you
to belong to that group.
Next, what religious assertions of mine are you
referring to? Moreover, I've not done anything
to try to convert you to whatever may be my take
on theism, whether to get you to believe in something
or not. However, I note it as a signature of your
militant atheism that you presume that anyone who
calls you a militant atheist is a theist. Predictable,
if illogical. And funny in the irrationality of
one who thinks they model their world on rational thought.
Why else would you present this lying implication
about me?
As to which of your claims have more religious than
analytical flavor, I shall defer to whatever perceptions
people have gained from your own words in other threads.
But to at least clarify my usage of religious, it
entails deep convictions that are impervious to
rational discussion joined with a pathological
tendency to view things as black and white.
snex
> On Aug 4, 4:48 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 12:43 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 3, 12:22 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > It seems to give stupidity a raison d'etre.
>
> > > Was one needed? I find that an unsupportable statement.
> > > Harboring and sheltering perhaps but one might look
> > > around this newsgroup and find that stupidity apparently
> > > thrives just as well among certain militant atheists.
> > > (though the ones I'm thinking of are rather religious
> > > in their atheism)
>
> > not a single one of these alleged "militant" (which of us have
> > advocated violence, again?) atheists would remain atheists if you
> > could simply present some decent evidence that your religious
> > assertions were true.
>
> > so why do you insist on lying about us?
>
> In English, the language I am currently using, militant
> as an adjective is not exclusive to those who advocate
> violence or bear arms. It describes those who are
> aggressively active in their cause. So there is
> not lie in calling strongly active advocates of
> atheism militants and your response defines you
> to belong to that group.
and yet you clearly use the word for the purpose of invoking its
violent connotations. do you refer to black, feminist, or gay
activists as "militant?" i sincerely doubt it, but they are just as
"militant" in the above sense of the word as "the new atheists." you
know damn well that your use of the word is derogatory and intended to
troll, and i have called you out on it. so why dont you stop?
>
> Next, what religious assertions of mine are you
> referring to? Moreover, I've not done anything
> to try to convert you to whatever may be my take
> on theism, whether to get you to believe in something
> or not. However, I note it as a signature of your
> militant atheism that you presume that anyone who
> calls you a militant atheist is a theist. Predictable,
> if illogical. And funny in the irrationality of
> one who thinks they model their world on rational thought.
>
> Why else would you present this lying implication
> about me?
>
> As to which of your claims have more religious than
> analytical flavor, I shall defer to whatever perceptions
> people have gained from your own words in other threads.
> But to at least clarify my usage of religious, it
> entails deep convictions that are impervious to
> rational discussion joined with a pathological
> tendency to view things as black and white.
im waiting for some evidence of theism here... any evidence at all.
how can i have religious fervor when i am giving you a fair chance to
offer evidence that my position is wrong and you fail to do so?
this is the same bullshit we have been getting from theists for
*centuries.* "you atheists are just as religious in your opinions as
we are in ours." blah blah blah. BULLSHIT. we all know what kind of
evidence it would take to demonstrate to us that a god existed, so
where is it? im waiting here, with an open mind, for you to present
some.
if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
Burkhard
none of them ever tried to convince me to become black, a woman or gay.
Nor did they ask me to denounce people for not being black, female or gay.
snex
but evolutionary biologists try to convince people to accept
evolutionary biology. oh the horror. how dare they explain to wrong
people why they are wrong. whatever shall we do?
Burkhard
wrong about them
snex
and so do atheists. what a coincidence!
now, do you have any evidence that any gods exist or dont you? it
seems to me that this is a fairly common thread among theists and
creationists - they both refuse to use evidence, whereas both
evolutionary biologists and atheists insist that evidence is of utmost
importance.
Burkhard
Nope, they make meta-level methodological arguments about burden of
proof allocation, which are not themselves empirical statements
>
> now, do you have any evidence that any gods exist or dont you?
see?
el cid
No, I did not. No I do not. And nothing in what I wrote
supports your interpretation. It's still up there and
remains unsupportive of your reading.
> do you refer to black, feminist, or gay
> activists as "militant?" i sincerely doubt it, but they are just as
> "militant" in the above sense of the word as "the new atheists." you
In fact, I, and many others, do. Militant feminism is a term
I've often used and not about feminists who advocate violence.
I'm also willing to call people militant gays when they
take extreme antagonistic positions and derogatorily refer
to "breeders". It's rather common usage.
> know damn well that your use of the word is derogatory and intended to
> troll, and i have called you out on it. so why dont you stop?
It is derogatory, in my view. It implies a combative nature first,
though not as you suggest via physical violence. And for what it's
worth, you usage of "troll" requires the extremely broad and rather
useless subdefinition. Unlike the rapscallion trolls, I mean what
I say and am not simply fishing for a fight.
> > Next, what religious assertions of mine are you
> > referring to? Moreover, I've not done anything
> > to try to convert you to whatever may be my take
> > on theism, whether to get you to believe in something
> > or not. However, I note it as a signature of your
> > militant atheism that you presume that anyone who
> > calls you a militant atheist is a theist. Predictable,
> > if illogical. And funny in the irrationality of
> > one who thinks they model their world on rational thought.
> > Why else would you present this lying implication
> > about me?
>
> > As to which of your claims have more religious than
> > analytical flavor, I shall defer to whatever perceptions
> > people have gained from your own words in other threads.
> > But to at least clarify my usage of religious, it
> > entails deep convictions that are impervious to
> > rational discussion joined with a pathological
> > tendency to view things as black and white.
>
> im waiting for some evidence of theism here...
> any evidence at all.
Why? I made no claims about theism so why would you
sanely expect me to provide you such evidence?
I have not attacked atheism.
I have attacked a cultish subbranch I called militant
atheism.
> how can i have religious fervor when i am giving you a fair chance to
> offer evidence that my position is wrong and you fail to do so?
Who asked you to have religious fervor?
Rather I might ask you to have less. You tilt at windmills that
are not even there. This exact exchange provides proof.
In your mind I must be a theist and must be trying to
convert you to theism yet I've done nothing of the kind
with you or with anyone else. I am not a theist.
> this is the same bullshit we have been getting from theists for
> *centuries.* "you atheists are just as religious in your opinions as
> we are in ours." blah blah blah. BULLSHIT. we all know what kind of
> evidence it would take to demonstrate to us that a god existed, so
> where is it? im waiting here, with an open mind, for you to present
> some.
You tilt at windmills. You think anyone who disagrees with your
militant atheism is trying to convert you. This is part of your
militancy.
It further seems that you do not merely not believe, you assert that
belief is itself a sign of mental dysfunction. You are unable to
distinguish between believing in X and asserting the truth of X.
> if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
extreme camp among theists.
snex
thats because we are not the ones asserting anything that would
require any evidence. we look around and say "i dont see any gods, so
im going to live as if there arent any until i see some evidence."
so where is that evidence again?
snex
right here you admit to attacking people, and then below you bitch
that we are "tilting at windmills." guess what idiot, *you* attacked
us! you just admitted to it!
>
> > how can i have religious fervor when i am giving you a fair chance to
> > offer evidence that my position is wrong and you fail to do so?
>
> Who asked you to have religious fervor?
i dont have it. pay attention. im offering you the chance to show that
my atheism is wrong. thats not "religious fervor," its an open mind.
> Rather I might ask you to have less. You tilt at windmills that
> are not even there. This exact exchange provides proof.
> In your mind I must be a theist and must be trying to
> convert you to theism yet I've done nothing of the kind
> with you or with anyone else. I am not a theist.
i am asking you to show me evidence that gods exist. if you cant, how
can you accuse me of having religious fervor?
>
> > this is the same bullshit we have been getting from theists for
> > *centuries.* "you atheists are just as religious in your opinions as
> > we are in ours." blah blah blah. BULLSHIT. we all know what kind of
> > evidence it would take to demonstrate to us that a god existed, so
> > where is it? im waiting here, with an open mind, for you to present
> > some.
>
> You tilt at windmills. You think anyone who disagrees with your
> militant atheism is trying to convert you. This is part of your
> militancy.
no moron, YOU attacked us, unprovoked, in this thread, and i am
pointing out how full of shit you are.
>
> It further seems that you do not merely not believe, you assert that
> belief is itself a sign of mental dysfunction. You are unable to
> distinguish between believing in X and asserting the truth of X.
and you cant show any such difference, because there isnt one.
>
> > if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> > you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> > religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>
> Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
> take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
> represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
> evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
> extreme camp among theists.
show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
el cid
I doubt you will ever understand but, as nobody has challenged
you for being an atheist, evidence of a god or gods is besides
the point. I have commented on militant atheists, for which
you are a poster child. The issue with militant atheists is
nothing to do with their lack of belief in a god or gods,
it is their fundamentalist view about their atheisms that
leaves them antagonistic to theism and often theists.
And, in your case, to any other atheists that don't share
their militancy. Yet you repeatedly make this very point,
probably without the self awareness to understand you are
doing so.
snex
where is the fundamentalism? i am asking for evidence that my position
is wrong. you arent offering any. no theist offers any. and then they
bitch that we are the ones who are "fundamentalist?" put up or shut up.
Andre Lieven
> On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 6:30 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> > > > you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> > > > religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>
> > > Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
> > > take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
> > > represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
> > > evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
> > > extreme camp among theists.
>
> > show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
> > go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
> > about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
>
> I doubt you will ever understand
Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
> but, as nobody has challenged you for being an atheist,
Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #1.
> evidence of a god or gods is besides the point.
Theistic Evasion #1.
> I have commented on militant atheists, for which
> you are a poster child.
Combination Ad Hominem #2, & ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #2.
> The issue with militant atheists is
> nothing to do with their lack of belief in a god or gods,
> it is their fundamentalist view about their atheisms that
> leaves them antagonistic to theism and often theists.
Combination Ad Hominem #3, & ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #3.
Free Clue: 2,000 plus year of theists running governments, and
often oppressing and killing atheists DOES mean that similar
theistic behavior now will be criticised.
Yes, because many atheists ARE aware of the bloody history
of theism, that we are "antagonistic" towards it, as we also are,
for similar reasons, "antagonistic" to slavery and torture, two
practices well approved of by not a few "holy books".
So, would you like some cheese with that whine ?
> And, in your case, to any other atheists that don't share
> their militancy.
Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #4.
> Yet you repeatedly make this very point,
> probably without the self awareness to understand you are
> doing so.
Theistic Ad Hominem #4.
You win the spinny lookalike award for the week...
Andre
el cid
> On Aug 4, 10:00 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 6:30 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> > > > > you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> > > > > religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>
> > > > Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
> > > > take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
> > > > represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
> > > > evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
> > > > extreme camp among theists.
>
> > > show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
> > > go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
> > > about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
>
> > I doubt you will ever understand
>
> Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
Not a theist here skippy.
> > but, as nobody has challenged you for being an atheist,
>
> Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #1.
I did not challenge him for being an atheist, which is
the proper reading of my statement. And it is a fact
available in the thread. The ASSumption is your and
his that I am a theist. It is not only an unsupported
assumption, it was explicitly corrected multiple times.
> > evidence of a god or gods is besides the point.
> Theistic Evasion #1.
You have trouble with logic it seems.
> > I have commented on militant atheists, for which
> > you are a poster child.
> Combination Ad Hominem #2, & ASSumption Unsupported
> By Any Evidence #2.
The evidence is right in this thread.
> > The issue with militant atheists is
> > nothing to do with their lack of belief in a god or gods,
> > it is their fundamentalist view about their atheisms that
> > leaves them antagonistic to theism and often theists.
> Combination Ad Hominem #3, & ASSumption Unsupported
> By Any Evidence #3.
You and he provide the support. Your antagonism is
demonstrated by your assumption that I am a theist
when there is not only no evidence supporting this
assumption, but clear statements refuting it.
> Free Clue: 2,000 plus year of theists running governments, and
> often oppressing and killing atheists DOES mean that similar
> theistic behavior now will be criticised.
Your sense of persecution apparently blinds you to the
fact that this historical oppression you cite was more
often directed at other theists.
> Yes, because many atheists ARE aware of the bloody history
> of theism, that we are "antagonistic" towards it, as we also are,
> for similar reasons, "antagonistic" to slavery and torture, two
> practices well approved of by not a few "holy books".
Stalin did no better. It looks much more like rationalized
tribalism than being innate to theism or atheism.
> So, would you like some cheese with that whine ?
And, to repeat, a key hallmark of the militant atheist
is that they project attacks on their narrow and zealous
perspective on atheism to be a universal attack on
atheism, just as literalist, young-earth creationists
project that attacks on their narrow and zealous
perspective is an attack on all theism. Interestingly,
many who point out the creationist lunacy are often
christians but the creationists assume they are atheists.
The parallel to militant atheists such as yourself,
projecting that fellow atheists who oppose your
militancy --- are theists --- is obvious to all who
do not share your religious zealotry.
> > And, in your case, to any other atheists that don't share
> > their militancy.
> Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #4.
The two of you are doing fine to support it, loud
and clear.
> > Yet you repeatedly make this very point,
> > probably without the self awareness to understand you are
> > doing so.
> Theistic Ad Hominem #4.
>
> You win the spinny lookalike award for the week...
Your perspective is duly noted.
You might want to look up ad hominem by the way.
My comments are unquestionally to that group I term
militant atheists and thus to the man, but your
usage tends to suggest you want to discount
my arguments as ad hominum fallacies. If so, you
need to get a refresher on what those are.
el cid
Under the unintended irony category
> Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
> Theistic Evasion #1.
> Combination Ad Hominem #2, & ASSumption Unsupported
> By Any Evidence #2.
> Combination Ad Hominem #3, & ASSumption Unsupported
> By Any Evidence #3.
> Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #4.
> Theistic Ad Hominem #4.
Burkhard
Yep, that's just what religious people would say.
And going back to the goalposts that you so conveniently removed: your
claim was that anyone who calls proselyting atheists militant should
also, in your words, call black, feminist and gay activists militant.
Just for the record: no answer from you to me pointing out the crucial
difference that they are not trying to convert me yet.
Burkhard
> On Aug 4, 10:00 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 6:30 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
>>>>> you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
>>>>> religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>>>> Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
>>>> take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
>>>> represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
>>>> evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
>>>> extreme camp among theists.
>>> show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
>>> go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
>>> about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
>> I doubt you will ever understand
>
> Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
>
>> but, as nobody has challenged you for being an atheist,
>
> Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #1.
Really? I haven't seen any post where he was attacked for being an
atheist, maybe I overlooked it. You sure can provide a link?
Andre Lieven
Whatever. The point remains that "not challenging" an atheist for
being an atheist and expecting Points for not doing so, is about
the same as "not challenging" someone for being rational.
> >> evidence of a god or gods is besides the point.
>
> > Theistic Evasion #1.
The topic of, is there any objective evidence that supports the
concept of a god or gods IS the central point.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Aug 4, 11:50 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 10:00 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 4, 6:30 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> > > > > > you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> > > > > > religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>
> > > > > Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
> > > > > take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
> > > > > represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
> > > > > evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
> > > > > extreme camp among theists.
>
> > > > show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
> > > > go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
> > > > about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
>
> > > I doubt you will ever understand
>
> > Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
>
> Not a theist here skippy.
<shrug> Whether you are one, or are merely an enabler, is
a difference which makes no difference.
> > > but, as nobody has challenged you for being an atheist,
>
> > Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #1.
>
> I did not challenge him for being an atheist, which is
> the proper reading of my statement. And it is a fact
> available in the thread. The ASSumption is your and
> his that I am a theist. It is not only an unsupported
> assumption, it was explicitly corrected multiple times.
Nonetheless, you seek "points" for not "challenging"
a rational person. Uh, no.
> > > evidence of a god or gods is besides the point.
> > Theistic Evasion #1.
>
> You have trouble with logic it seems.
<Ad Hominem #5 Projection>
> > > I have commented on militant atheists, for which
> > > you are a poster child.
> > Combination Ad Hominem #2, & ASSumption Unsupported
> > By Any Evidence #2.
>
> The evidence is right in this thread.
Free Clue, skippy: Your view of it is NOT obligatory upon
anyone else.
> > > The issue with militant atheists is
> > > nothing to do with their lack of belief in a god or gods,
> > > it is their fundamentalist view about their atheisms that
> > > leaves them antagonistic to theism and often theists.
> > Combination Ad Hominem #3, & ASSumption Unsupported
> > By Any Evidence #3.
>
> You and he provide the support. Your antagonism is
> demonstrated by your assumption that I am a theist
> when there is not only no evidence supporting this
> assumption, but clear statements refuting it.
I care not what you are, that your claims are bullshit is
enough to criticise them.
> > Free Clue: 2,000 plus year of theists running governments, and
> > often oppressing and killing atheists DOES mean that similar
> > theistic behavior now will be criticised.
>
> Your sense of persecution apparently blinds you to the
> fact that this historical oppression you cite was more
> often directed at other theists.
Ad Hominem Alone #6, and ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #5.
> > Yes, because many atheists ARE aware of the bloody history
> > of theism, that we are "antagonistic" towards it, as we also are,
> > for similar reasons, "antagonistic" to slavery and torture, two
> > practices well approved of by not a few "holy books".
>
> Stalin did no better.
So ? If it is your claim that Stalin's regime fairly represents
what a regime that included rational atheism would be like,
then you are quite willfully ignorant, insane, and a dupe of
theistic LIES.
> It looks much more like rationalized
> tribalism than being innate to theism or atheism.
Ad Hominem Alone #7, and ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #6.
> > So, would you like some cheese with that whine ?
>
> And, to repeat, a key hallmark of the militant atheist
> is that they project attacks on their narrow and zealous
> perspective on atheism to be a universal attack on
> atheism, just as literalist, young-earth creationists
> project that attacks on their narrow and zealous
> perspective is an attack on all theism. Interestingly,
> many who point out the creationist lunacy are often
> christians but the creationists assume they are atheists.
Ad Hominem Alone #8, and ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #7.
> The parallel to militant atheists such as yourself,
> projecting that fellow atheists who oppose your
> militancy --- are theists --- is obvious to all who
> do not share your religious zealotry.
Ad Hominem Alone #9, and ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #8.
Your willfully ignorant and theistic based bullshit ASSumes
that atheism is a mirror image of theism; It is not nor can it
be.
Because atheism has NO dogma, no churches, and no Pope,
etc.
> > > And, in your case, to any other atheists that don't share
> > > their militancy.
> > Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #4.
>
> The two of you are doing fine to support it, loud
> and clear.
Ad Hominem Alone #10, and ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #9.
> > > Yet you repeatedly make this very point,
> > > probably without the self awareness to understand you are
> > > doing so.
> > Theistic Ad Hominem #4.
>
> > You win the spinny lookalike award for the week...
>
> Your perspective is duly noted.
> You might want to look up ad hominem by the way.
> My comments are unquestionally to that group I term
> militant atheists and thus to the man, but your
> usage tends to suggest you want to discount
> my arguments as ad hominum fallacies. If so, you
> need to get a refresher on what those are.
Ad Hominem Alone #11, and ASSumption Unsupported
By Any Evidence #10.
You make many claims that display near total ignorance of
atheism and of atheists, so you do display a religious type
of bigotry.
Please die last week.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Under the unintended irony category
Under the no-refutation attempted fuckwitted theistic loon category.
> > Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
> > Theistic Evasion #1.
> > Combination Ad Hominem #2, & ASSumption Unsupported
> > By Any Evidence #2.
> > Combination Ad Hominem #3, & ASSumption Unsupported
> > By Any Evidence #3.
> > Theistic ASSumption Unsupported By Any Evidence #4.
> > Theistic Ad Hominem #4.
Andre
Burkhard
There are point awarded. Golly, nobody told me. I thought you had just
made an obviously wrong statement (to wit, that Cid's claim that nobody
had accused snex for being an atheist was an assumption unsupoerted by
evidence.)
Btw: your way of writing "ASSumption", you know with the ASS
capitalised, would be _ever_ so cute in a five year old.
>
>>>> evidence of a god or gods is besides the point.
>>> Theistic Evasion #1.
>
> The topic of, is there any objective evidence that supports the
> concept of a god or gods IS the central point.
>
> Andre
>
that might be the topic you would prefer to discuss, does not mean
everyone else has to.
Andre Lieven
Further, it is a meaningless claim.
> Btw: your way of writing "ASSumption", you know with the ASS
> capitalised, would be _ever_ so cute in a five year old.
Then, I apologise for writing *above* your level.
> >>>> evidence of a god or gods is besides the point.
> >>> Theistic Evasion #1.
>
> > The topic of, is there any objective evidence that supports the
> > concept of a god or gods IS the central point.
>
> > Andre
>
> that might be the topic you would prefer to discuss, does not mean
> everyone else has to.
Too bad; It remains a point that demolishes any attempt to claim
that atheists and atheism are, in any way, mirror images of theism
and of theists.
Deal with it.
Andre
el cid
digging category.
Further referenced for your amusement, from Thomas J. Marlowe's
fun with fallacy's page (Thomas used to contribute here long
ago) http://thenonsequitur.com/?p=547
"Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and
blackguards. Therefore, they are invalid."
snex
and theyd be wrong, of course. they are asserting that a god exists.
wheres the evidence?
not only that, but most of them assert many other silly things, like
that some piece of land is holy and was given to them by god, or that
a virgin gave birth, or that you must not eat pork. they have no
evidence for any of this stuff either.
>
> And going back to the goalposts that you so conveniently removed: your
> claim was that anyone who calls proselyting atheists militant should
> also, in your words, call black, feminist and gay activists militant.
> Just for the record: no answer from you to me pointing out the crucial
> difference that they are not trying to convert me yet.
thats because its an irrelevant point, and i showed this by pointing
out that evolutionary biologists, who you *wouldnt* refer to as
"militant" *do* try to convert people.
snex
> On Aug 4, 11:50 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 10:00 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 4, 6:30 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> > > > > > you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> > > > > > religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>
> > > > > Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
> > > > > take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
> > > > > represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
> > > > > evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
> > > > > extreme camp among theists.
>
> > > > show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
> > > > go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
> > > > about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
>
> > > I doubt you will ever understand
>
> > Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
>
> Not a theist here skippy.
i never called you a theist or assumed you were one. im pointing out
that until you present me some evidence for the existence of any gods,
you are out of bounds for calling me "militant" and assuming that my
atheism is "religious." show me the evidence and ill change my mind -
otherwise kindly shut the fuck up about things about which you have no
knowledge.
el cid
Happily, nobody in this thread made such a claim.
I expect you to remain confused so I will help you some.
Claiming something about militant atheists, a subclass of
atheists, is not the same thing as claiming something
about atheists.
The problem with this logic, however, is rooted in
the observation that some people, a subset of people
in case you are having trouble following, perpetually
see the world in black and white terms. The catch
phrase that captures this well in many cases is
"if you ain't with me, you are against me".
This attribute has long be recognized in fundamentalist
religious extremists. Its appearance within a
subset of atheists is a growing trend. It is an
odd thing as atheism is generally a position arrived
at by rational thinking but this sense of persecution
and polarization is anything but rational. It
suggests that at some point, the rational thinking
ended and a more "religious" perspective takes over.
In my experience, this used to be an extremely
small phenomenon in atheists. Whether it has grown,
or whether that small group have simply grown more
vocal I'm not sure.
el cid
Within this thread, I did not introduce you but militant atheists.
You jumped in as if the term applied to all atheists and with some
odd notions of what the modifier militant meant in context. Your
immediate reaction was that I was attacking atheism per se. I did
not, have not, will not do so. As there was no such attack or
attempt to convince you of any theistic position, your demands
that I provide you some evidence of some god or gods is simply
irrational. Yes, I find this ironic given claims of your position
being a rational one. Please note the distinction here between
atheism per se being rational and your particular take on atheism.
As you are not the Pope of atheism, your own perspective on
atheism simply is not universal. Do try to understand.
Andre Lieven
> And in a repeat performance in the, when in a hole keep
> digging category.
Then, stop doing that...
> Further referenced for your amusement, from Thomas J. Marlowe's
> fun with fallacy's page (Thomas used to contribute here long
> ago)http://thenonsequitur.com/?p=547
> "Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and
> blackguards. Therefore, they are invalid."
That's why YOUR repeated ad hominems failed. HTH.
snex
or maybe you ought to consider the idea that this really is a black
and white matter. god either exists or he doesnt. why is that hard for
you to understand? SOMEBODY here is right and SOMEBODY here is wrong,
no matter how you try to paint it.
are you really so stupid as to think that there are no black and white
matters in the world? that everybody's perspective is valid? is
postmodernist gobblydegook really your only defense here? if so, why
do you keep telling creationists how wrong they are? stop with your
fundamentalist black and white perspective on origins.
Andre Lieven
> On Aug 5, 10:20 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:12 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > everyone else has to.
>
> > Too bad; It remains a point that demolishes any attempt to claim
> > that atheists and atheism are, in any way, mirror images of theism
> > and of theists.
>
> > Deal with it.
>
> Happily, nobody in this thread made such a claim.
You did, with your bullshit of "militant atheists", as snex
rightly also just pointed out to you.
> I expect you to remain confused so I will help you some.
<Laughs>
> Claiming something about militant atheists, a subclass of
> atheists, is not the same thing as claiming something
> about atheists.
You may wish that that were true. It remains false.
> The problem with this logic, however, is rooted in
> the observation that some people, a subset of people
> in case you are having trouble following, perpetually
> see the world in black and white terms. The catch
> phrase that captures this well in many cases is
> "if you ain't with me, you are against me".
> This attribute has long be recognized in fundamentalist
> religious extremists. Its appearance within a
> subset of atheists is a growing trend.
ASSumption made with NO supporting evidence.
Pretty much every atheist would boil it down thus:
"In the total absence of any objective evidence for ANY
deity figure, belief in such a figure is irrational."
I quite agree.
> It is an
> odd thing as atheism is generally a position arrived
> at by rational thinking but this sense of persecution
> and polarization is anything but rational.
See, once again, you ARE commiting an ad hominem at
atheism.
> It suggests that at some point, the rational thinking
> ended and a more "religious" perspective takes over.
And, your supporting *evidence* for this claim is... ?
Uh huh. It is due to your LEAPS of ASSumption that
I labelled you a theist, or theist equivalent.
> In my experience, this used to be an extremely
> small phenomenon in atheists. Whether it has grown,
> or whether that small group have simply grown more
> vocal I'm not sure.
Freedom Of Speech, babybee !
Frankly, we are sick and tired of having to play defence
to never ending theistic attempts to subvert science, and
to deny us equal rights. The whole flap from theists about
the atheist bus ads is a good case in point; When *their*
messages were on busses, they saw that as being Just
Fine And Dandy, but when The Other Side dared ask for
Equal Time, and was willing to pay for it, they got up on
their hind legs and squealed.
Such doofuses tend to see Freedom Of Speech as being
applicable to Everyone Who Agrees With Them.
We're different; Few atheists wish to make theistic expression
illegal. We just want it to stay within the religious sphere, and
to keep it the heck away from secular public school science
classrooms.
As long as the theists try to violate OUR rights, we WILL
speak up. Deal with it.
Andre
snex
my "particular take on atheism" is ATHEISM. i lack belief in gods. all
atheists lack belief in gods. there are no divisions in atheism, no
dogmas, no leaders of the church. thats all atheism is - the lack of
belief in gods.
> As you are not the Pope of atheism, your own perspective on
> atheism simply is not universal. Do try to understand.
there are no "perspectives on atheism." we lack belief in gods,
period. not because it is our religion, but because there is no
evidence for any gods. for you to claim that *any* of us are religious
is simply a load of bullshit.
el cid
> On Aug 5, 10:59 am, el cid <elcidbi...@moron.pedant> whined:
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:20 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 10:12 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > everyone else has to.
>
> > > Too bad; It remains a point that demolishes any attempt to claim
> > > that atheists and atheism are, in any way, mirror images of theism
> > > and of theists.
>
> > > Deal with it.
>
> > Happily, nobody in this thread made such a claim.
>
> You did, with your bullshit of "militant atheists", as snex
> rightly also just pointed out to you.
>
> > I expect you to remain confused so I will help you some.
>
> <Laughs>
>
> > Claiming something about militant atheists, a subclass of
> > atheists, is not the same thing as claiming something
> > about atheists.
>
> You may wish that that were true. It remains false.
Your position then is that a statement about players
for the Yankees is the same as a statement about
all players in major league baseball?
That a statement about Baptists is a statement about
all christican? Fascinating.
> > The problem with this logic, however, is rooted in
> > the observation that some people, a subset of people
> > in case you are having trouble following, perpetually
> > see the world in black and white terms. The catch
> > phrase that captures this well in many cases is
> > "if you ain't with me, you are against me".
> > This attribute has long be recognized in fundamentalist
> > religious extremists. Its appearance within a
> > subset of atheists is a growing trend.
>
> ASSumption made with NO supporting evidence.
> Pretty much every atheist would boil it down thus:
>
> "In the total absence of any objective evidence for ANY
> deity figure, belief in such a figure is irrational."
>
> I quite agree.
> > It is an
> > odd thing as atheism is generally a position arrived
> > at by rational thinking but this sense of persecution
> > and polarization is anything but rational.
>
> See, once again, you ARE commiting an ad hominem at
> atheism.
Your analysis is hopeless. Not all atheists feel
persecuted. A subset do. The comment about irrationality
is toward the subset and not to atheists in general.
Really, do try to do better.
Burkhard
And THAT is a religious claim, based in a _philosophical_doctrine of
what "to exist" means, nothing that is itself subject to scientific
scrutiny
Burkhard
> dogmas, no leaders of the church. thats all atheism is - the lack of
> belief in gods.
>
> > As you are not the Pope of atheism, your own perspective on
> > atheism simply is not universal. Do try to understand.
>
> there are no "perspectives on atheism." we lack belief in gods,
> period. not because it is our religion, but because there is no
> evidence for any gods. for you to claim that *any* of us are religious
> is simply a load of bullshit.
Says ex cathedra the Pope of atheism, who is bans all atheists who
think that subtle distinctions are relevant (they probably are not
"true" atheists anyway) - or the sociologists or theorust sof
philsophy and religion who find these subcategories meaningful
snex
like i said, the only defense for you people is postmodern
gobbledygook. but you fail to realize that this undercuts your ability
to claim that evolution is somehow a preferred view over creationism.
Kermit
I wasn't paying attention to previous posts on this subject, but this
caught my eye. Why would the existence or not of gods, or the evidence
for them, matter to whether or not it's accurate to call you a
militant atheist? It does seem silly to call atheism religious, but it
rather depends on what the definition of "religious" is, I suppose,
and whether by someone's atheism you mean simply their beliefs(1) or
lack of beliefs on this issue, or all associated behavior.
(1) Even this word is a minefield all on its own. I mean by "belief"
thinking that X is true ("I believe India has over a billion
citizens"), not embracing a set of values ("I believe in a scholar's
mind in an athlete's body"). Creationists will often conflate the two
definitions at their convenience, but it's still a perfectly good
word.
Kermit
Burkhard
> On Aug 5, 12:50 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> idiotised:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 11:50 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 10:00 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 4, 6:30 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> > > > > > > you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> > > > > > > religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>
> > > > > > Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
> > > > > > take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
> > > > > > represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
> > > > > > evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
> > > > > > extreme camp among theists.
>
> > > > > show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
> > > > > go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
> > > > > about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
>
> > > > I doubt you will ever understand
>
> > > Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
>
> > Not a theist here skippy.
>
> <shrug> Whether you are one, or are merely an enabler, is
> a difference which makes no difference.
>
Cid, thou stands accused by the Unholy Inquisition of giving succour
and comfort to THE ENEMY. How dost thou plead?
Does it not say, verily, in the gospel that "who is not for us is
against us"?
Comfy chair and tea to arrive soon, sorry for the delay , the
management
Kermit
> On Aug 5, 10:59 am, el cid <elcidbi...@moron.pedant> whined:
<snip>
>
> > Claiming something about militant atheists, a subclass of
> > atheists, is not the same thing as claiming something
> > about atheists.
>
> You may wish that that were true. It remains false.
Some atheists are communists.
<snip>
>
> Andre
Kermit
Burkhard
Quine's "To be is to be the value of a bound variable" is post-modern
gobbledygook? Cantor and Goedel on the way abstract objects such as
numbers exists is post-modern gobbedygook? Meinong and the young
Bertrand Russell were postmodern? Debates about the way in which
mental states exist is gobbedygook? Kant, and all those who followed
him who saud "existenc is not a preciate" is postmoredfn
gobbledygook?
> but you fail to realize that this undercuts your ability
> to claim that evolution is somehow a preferred view over creationism.
"Preferred" relative to what standard? If i want to decide which one
is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could
though) If I want to decide which one is better science, I go for the
ToE
The way in which the objects of your specific theory exists decide to
what field of human experience and knowledge they belong. For science,
these are different from religion, ethics or art. If I want to do
science, I do it by the methodological rules of science, if I do
religion, I do it by the methodological rules of religion.
snex
no, moron. but continue lying, it makes you look oh so much better.
its funny how you peddle these lies about atheists and then bitch and
cry that we are "militant" when we tell you to stop lying about us.
people see through your bullshit, which is exactly why there are more
atheists now than ever before.
snex
no goofball, your defense in this matter is postmodern gobbledygook.
god either exists or he doesnt - there is no middle ground in that
proposition.
>
> > but you fail to realize that this undercuts your ability
> > to claim that evolution is somehow a preferred view over creationism.
>
> "Preferred" relative to what standard? If i want to decide which one
> is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could
> though) If I want to decide which one is better science, I go for the
> ToE
based on what? youve already abandoned the idea that "existence" is a
meaningful term. evidence for evolution may "exist" for you, but who
says it "exists" for creationists? maybe it doesnt "exist" for them!
their view is just as valid!
>
> The way in which the objects of your specific theory exists decide to
> what field of human experience and knowledge they belong. For science,
> these are different from religion, ethics or art. If I want to do
> science, I do it by the methodological rules of science, if I do
> religion, I do it by the methodological rules of religion.
and those rules would be...?
el cid
That's really so precious in context, even with the context
removed.
Unfortunately TJ Marlowe page does not have a humorous
example of a false dichotomy, so I will randomly pick
an irrelevant one.
"As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are
invalid."
el cid
Well I'm guilty, lord knows I'm guilty (most recently of
entailments existential import) but as my accusers don't
even understand this crime I beg clemency lest I suffer
from an incompetent prosecution that should unwittingly
lead to me being found innocent. That would be a gross
miscarriage of justice.
Andre Lieven
Enabling LIARS is bad, by any moral code I know of.
Further, claiming at my statement of my person view is an
"inquisition"
is, well, insane.
When you express your views, is that an "inquisition", too ? If not,
WHY
not ?
> How dost thou plead?
> Does it not say, verily, in the gospel that "who is not for us is
> against us"?
Lies are lies, and no excuses for them will change that.
That there has NEVER been one shred of objective evidence for any
deity figures is a fact. You can refute it, *by proffering up some
actual
objective evidence*...
> Comfy chair and tea to arrive soon, sorry for the delay , the
> management
No, just one more whiner.
Andre
Andre Lieven
So ? Some theists were Nazis.
Did you have an actual point ?
> <snip>
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Aug 5, 10:05 am, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 10:47 am, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 11:50 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 4, 11:50 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 4, 10:00 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 4, 9:05 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 4, 6:30 pm, el cid <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > if you cant, shut the fuck up about how "religious" i am. i offered
> > > > > > > > > you a chance to show me wrong and you failed. thats not me being
> > > > > > > > > religious, thats you being a failure. get it straight.
>
> > > > > > > > Your own responses here provide the evidence for your religious
> > > > > > > > take on atheism. Apparently, you fail to understand that you
> > > > > > > > represent a minority extremist position among atheists just as
> > > > > > > > evangelical, literalist, young earth creationists represent an
> > > > > > > > extreme camp among theists.
>
> > > > > > > show me the evidence for any gods and ill convert right on the spot.
> > > > > > > go on, show it. otherwise, go fuck yourself with your accusations
> > > > > > > about how "religious" i am. put up or shut up.
>
> > > > > > I doubt you will ever understand
>
> > > > > Theistic Ad Hominem #1.
>
> > > > Not a theist here skippy.
>
> > > that until you present me some evidence for the existence of any gods,
> > > you are out of bounds for calling me "militant" and assuming that my
> > > atheism is "religious." show me the evidence and ill change my mind -
> > > otherwise kindly shut the fuck up about things about which you have no
> > > knowledge.
>
> > Within this thread, I did not introduce you but militant atheists.
> > You jumped in as if the term applied to all atheists and with some
> > odd notions of what the modifier militant meant in context. Your
> > immediate reaction was that I was attacking atheism per se. I did
> > not, have not, will not do so. As there was no such attack or
> > attempt to convince you of any theistic position, your demands
> > that I provide you some evidence of some god or gods is simply
> > irrational. Yes, I find this ironic given claims of your position
> > being a rational one. Please note the distinction here between
> > atheism per se being rational and your particular take on atheism.
>
> my "particular take on atheism" is ATHEISM. i lack belief in gods. all
> dogmas, no leaders of the church. thats all atheism is - the lack of
> belief in gods.
Indeed. This canard of "militant" atheism is a Straw Man, designed
to try to create a false equivalence between a belief in sky pixies
for which there is AbZero supporting evidence for, and a *disbelief*
in such pixies, for exactly that *reason*.
The discomfort of those whiners complaining about "militant" atheism
appear to be fine with atheism, as long as it 1) Stays silent, and 2)
Thus stays tiny in numbers.
> > As you are not the Pope of atheism, your own perspective on
> > atheism simply is not universal. Do try to understand.
>
> there are no "perspectives on atheism." we lack belief in gods,
> period. not because it is our religion, but because there is no
> evidence for any gods. for you to claim that *any* of us are religious
> is simply a load of bullshit.
Indeed. It is as absurd a claim as the one that NOT collecting
stamps is a "hobby"...
Andre
Burkhard
I've cited you a couple of theorist who agree with me, all pre-dating
post modernism by quite a bit. I see you failed to address any of
these points. And rejecting a middle ground, where a lot of the
relevant academic literature, including the literature produced by
scientists accepts one, and without engaging with the arguments
brought forward for this, is exactly what I would describe as a
"religious belief"
>
> > > but you fail to realize that this undercuts your ability
> > > to claim that evolution is somehow a preferred view over creationism.
>
> > "Preferred" relative to what standard? If i want to decide which one
> > is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could
> > though) If I want to decide which one is better science, I go for the
> > ToE
>
> based on what? youve already abandoned the idea that "existence" is a
> meaningful term.
If I were snex, I would accuse you of lying about my position here.
Since I'm not: this is not at all what I said. It is, as per Kant,
not a term subject to scientific investigation and analysis, but one
presupposed by science (and any other discipline) . Only if one
presupposes your particular metaphysics that only scientific terms are
meaningful woudl one come to your conclusion. I think I made it pretty
clear that I don;t, so for me existence has meaning (to be the value
of a bound variable, a rather precise one) just not the one you try to
impose on everyone
evidence for evolution may "exist" for you, but who
> says it "exists" for creationists? maybe it doesnt "exist" for them!
> their view is just as valid!
>
Relative for a different meaning of exists. So what?
> >
> > The way in which the objects of your specific theory exists decide to
> > what field of human experience and knowledge they belong. For science,
> > these are different from religion, ethics or art. If I want to do
> > science, I do it by the methodological rules of science, if I do
> > religion, I do it by the methodological rules of religion.
>
> and those rules would be...?
We rather have been over this. Conceptual analysis, consistency checks
etc? You remeber? The sort of things text based disciplines do?
Burkhard
The point here is the observation that statements about a subgroup are
not a statements about the entire group, something you denied
previously.
And I quote:
Cid:
> Claiming something about militant atheists, a subclass of
> atheists, is not the same thing as claiming something
> about atheists.
You
> You may wish that that were true. It remains false.
Kermit's argument shows that far from being wrong, it was a pretty
basic statement of predicate logic - you can try drawing a Venn
diagram if that help.
Andre Lieven
> On Aug 5, 7:16 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 12:28 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 5, 8:12 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 5, 10:59 am, el cid <elcidbi...@moron.pedant> whined:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > Claiming something about militant atheists, a subclass of
> > > > > atheists, is not the same thing as claiming something
> > > > > about atheists.
>
> > > > You may wish that that were true. It remains false.
>
> > > Some atheists are communists.
>
> > So ? Some theists were Nazis.
>
> > Did you have an actual point ?
>
> The point here is the observation that statements about a subgroup are
> not a statements about the entire group,
When the sub-group name INCLUDES the entire group's name, and when
the boundaries of the alleged difference between the entire group and
the
sub group is NOT at all defined, then yes, it IS a statement about the
entire
group, just a dishonest and evasive one.
> something you denied previously.
>
> And I quote:
> Cid:
>
> > Claiming something about militant atheists, a subclass of
> > atheists, is not the same thing as claiming something
> > about atheists.
>
> You
>
> > You may wish that that were true. It remains false.
>
> Kermit's argument shows that far from being wrong, it was a pretty
> basic statement of predicate logic - you can try drawing a Venn
> diagram if that help.
Venn diagrams depend on a *precise* definition in order to put
one group into one circle, and another group into another circle.
What is your PRECISE boundary between "militant atheists" and
"atheists" ?
Show your work.
Andre
Burkhard
> > philosophy and religion who find these subcategories meaningful
>
> no, moron. but continue lying, it makes you look oh so much better.
>
> its funny how you peddle these lies about atheists
It is a lie that not all atheists agree with your description of their
position, and it ios a lie that researchers who study atheism from a
theoretical and sociological perspective identify subdivisions
amongst people who consider themselves atheists?
And I quote you
"There are no subdivisions in atheism"
Who else but the Pope of atheism could make such a claim in the face
of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Burkhard
A militant atheists is one who believes everybody not agreeing with
him is either mentally ill or dishonest and needs convincing
(proselyting atheist) even if the actions of the specific theist in
question do not cause any harm to anybody, a non-militant atheists
thinks that his atheism is the result of his personal believes,
convictions and life experience, and while possibly or even probably
true, something other people with different experience or preferences,
and only worries about other people's believes if they cause damage to
him or non-consenting third parties.
might rationally disagree about.
snex
atheism is the lack of belief in gods. not because our religion tells
us to, but because theists have no evidence. deal with it.
el cid
I am becoming more and more fascinated to learn that I've
been getting it wrong for all these years.
Here I thought some people simply did not believe in a god
or gods, some others specifically believe that there are
not gods (they are different things) and some go so far
as to assert the facthood of the non-existence of gods.
(yet again, a different thing).
Then as to the whys, some, I thought having spoken to
them, rejected evidence for god or gods without going so
far as to saying such things as testimonies of believers
was not evidence, rather looking at it as evidence and
finding contradictions which led them to discount said
evidence. Certainly others have taken a wholesale stance
that the sorts of things theists list as evidence are
without any merit upon first principles of wwhat they
consider evidence. And having talked to enough people who
take different lines, I thought such people existed.
Now I am being told that all atheists are unified, and
have the same identical non-belief for the same
reason. When did the great unification take place?
Was there a vote?
All these years of observation thinking that humans
are incredibly diverse and complex only to find it
ain't so. At least I've now learned not to trust that
which can be learned by observation and study and
instead focus on what I am told by insightful voices
on the internet.
Thanks so much for the enlightenment. The both
of you are very special in my mind.
snex
so a "militant atheist" then is no different than how an evolutionary
biologist sees evolutionary biology. why arent they militant, again?
they even demand that their beliefs get taught to children in public
schools. i havent seen any atheists going that far.
snex
i am not interested in playing stupid semantic games, and i will not
be dragged into them. the existence of god is a black and white
matter. a god either exists or it doesnt. there is no "halfway"
existence. asserting that there is does not make it so.
>
>
> > > > but you fail to realize that this undercuts your ability
> > > > to claim that evolution is somehow a preferred view over creationism.
>
> > > "Preferred" relative to what standard? If i want to decide which one
> > > is the better religion, I would not necessarily go for the ToE (could
> > > though) If I want to decide which one is better science, I go for the
> > > ToE
>
> > based on what? youve already abandoned the idea that "existence" is a
> > meaningful term.
>
> If I were snex, I would accuse you of lying about my position here.
> Since I'm not: this is not at all what I said. It is, as per Kant,
> not a term subject to scientific investigation and analysis, but one
> presupposed by science (and any other discipline) . Only if one
> presupposes your particular metaphysics that only scientific terms are
> meaningful woudl one come to your conclusion. I think I made it pretty
> clear that I don;t, so for me existence has meaning (to be the value
> of a bound variable, a rather precise one) just not the one you try to
> impose on everyone
in other words, you accept stupid bullshit premises, therefore stupid
bullshit conclusions are acceptable to you. congrats, youre still an
idiot.
>
> evidence for evolution may "exist" for you, but who> says it "exists" for creationists? maybe it doesnt "exist" for them!
> > their view is just as valid!
>
> Relative for a different meaning of exists. So what?
so stop telling them that they are wrong. stop insisting that public
schools teach science to children, when every other view is just as
valid.
>
>
> > > The way in which the objects of your specific theory exists decide to
> > > what field of human experience and knowledge they belong. For science,
> > > these are different from religion, ethics or art. If I want to do
> > > science, I do it by the methodological rules of science, if I do
> > > religion, I do it by the methodological rules of religion.
>
> > and those rules would be...?
>
> We rather have been over this. Conceptual analysis, consistency checks
> etc? You remeber? The sort of things text based disciplines do?
and the sort of things that religions deliberately avoid. so ill ask
again, what are the methodological rules of religion? how can i use
them to evaluate a statement such as "god exists" for truth or
falsity? why cant religious people all agree on the results?