Validation of belief.

[Drafterman]

I think we can all agree that every religion, denomination, sect, has
members that are convinced of the validity of their belief.

The problem is, they can't all be right. In fact, at most one can be
entirely correct. That means there are a great deal of people who are
completely convinced, yet are wrong. They have enough evidence by way
of miracles, external observation, internal experiences, etc. etc. but
yet have still arrived at the wrong conclusion.

So, if you are a theist, what, specifically, have you done to rule out
the possibility that you are wrong about your belief? How have you
eliminated yourself from the set of people that have been wrongly
convinced by the evidence you percieve?

[Walt]

Islam does address this question. It says that God's message is
consistent, but that humans have a strong tendency to distort it.

"In Islam, the human problem is seen as forgetfulness, even active
forgetfulness. But forgetful of what? Islam holds that all humans are
born with a pre-disposition to Islam; it is part of their innate
nature. But as a baby grows up, it may be turned in another direction.
This may be a turning towards another religion or perhaps away from
recognition of the divine altogether. The human problem is thus the
forgetting of one's inborn tendency to follow Allah.

The solution to forgetfulness, of course, is to remember. Islam holds
that people need to remember Allah and his path, namely, the path of
submission to him. Once they remember, they then need to submit to
Allah and follow his will.

This is why Allah sent the [prophets], namely, to remind people of
Allah and his message. Most of the prophets important in Islam are
figures in Judaism and Christianity. Some of the most frequently
mentioned are: Adam, [Abraham], Moses, Solomon and [Jesus]. These
followers of Allah all brought his message, but in every case it was
misunderstood, distorted, or forgotten. Thus while some of Allah's
message became known, the complete message was never available to
humanity."

http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/islam/ICOSMOS.HTM

[Drafterman]

> > convinced by the evidence you percieve?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How does acknowleding that humans have a tendency to distort validate
the belief in Islam?

[Walt]

In a nutshell, the Moslem argument is:
1) All true prophets of God have a consistent message.
2) Humans typically have a strong tendency to forget/distort
information.
3) There is good historical evidence that Mohamed was an rational,
exceptional and honest man. It is not reasonable to think he was
lying or crazy when he claimed to be repeating word for word what the
messenger of God said. There is good historical evidence that the
written Quran is an accurate transcription of the recitations of
Mohamed. No other prophet or religion is similarly grounded in
history.

[Sketch System]

The assertion that someone is right because they say they are is
utterly meaningless and doesn't answer the question.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 7, 1:17 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a nutshell, the Moslem argument is:
> 1)  All true prophets of God have a consistent message.
> 2)  Humans typically have a strong tendency to forget/distort
> information.
> 3)  There is good historical evidence that Mohamed was an rational,
> exceptional and honest man.  It is not reasonable to think he was
> lying or crazy when he claimed to be repeating word for word what the
> messenger of God said.  There is good historical evidence that the
> written Quran is an accurate transcription of the recitations of
> Mohamed.  No other prophet or religion is similarly grounded in
> history.

And how is that significantly different from any other religion? All
religions have adherents that tout the historical accuracy in regards
to the accounts of their dogma. Yet they can't all be right. So how
does Islam validate this claim of accuracy in a way others don't?

And why are you speaking for something you don't adhere to?

> > the belief in Islam?- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

On Jan 7, 1:28 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:17 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In a nutshell, the Moslem argument is:
> > 1) All true prophets of God have a consistent message.
> > 2) Humans typically have a strong tendency to forget/distort
> > information.
> > 3) There is good historical evidence that Mohamed was an rational,
> > exceptional and honest man. It is not reasonable to think he was
> > lying or crazy when he claimed to be repeating word for word what the
> > messenger of God said. There is good historical evidence that the
> > written Quran is an accurate transcription of the recitations of
> > Mohamed. No other prophet or religion is similarly grounded in
> > history.
>
> And how is that significantly different from any other religion? All
> religions have adherents that tout the historical accuracy in regards
> to the accounts of their dogma. Yet they can't all be right. So how
> does Islam validate this claim of accuracy in a way others don't?

What other prophet is commonly viewed by secular historians as having
accomplished so many positive things?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_reforms_under_Islam

>
> And why are you speaking for something you don't adhere to?

It's a behavior conducive to pluralism, something I do adhere to.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 7, 2:11 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 1:28 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 1:17 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In a nutshell, the Moslem argument is:
> > > 1)  All true prophets of God have a consistent message.
> > > 2)  Humans typically have a strong tendency to forget/distort
> > > information.
> > > 3)  There is good historical evidence that Mohamed was an rational,
> > > exceptional and honest man.  It is not reasonable to think he was
> > > lying or crazy when he claimed to be repeating word for word what the
> > > messenger of God said.  There is good historical evidence that the
> > > written Quran is an accurate transcription of the recitations of
> > > Mohamed.  No other prophet or religion is similarly grounded in
> > > history.
>
> > And how is that significantly different from any other religion? All
> > religions have adherents that tout the historical accuracy in regards
> > to the accounts of their dogma. Yet they can't all be right. So how
> > does Islam validate this claim of accuracy in a way others don't?
>
> What other prophet is commonly viewed by secular historians as having
> accomplished so many positive things?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_reforms_under_Islam
>
>
>
> > And why are you speaking for something you don't adhere to?
>
> It's a behavior conducive to pluralism, something I do adhere to.

Apparently you've missed the entire point of the question. I assure it
was not:

Which religions are validated by secular historians.

Nor was it:

How do you validate pluralism.

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

[Walt]

Sorry, I thought you were asking how the adherents of any religion
could feel that there was stronger evidence of the truth of their
religion, compared to other religions.

>
> Nor was it:
>
> How do you validate pluralism.

I apologize that the answer to a particular question is generally not
the answer to different, previous question.

[Drafterman]

Nothing you've provided here separates Islam from any other religion
since they all pretty much make the same claims.

[Walt]

Everything is pretty much the same, you just have to ignore enough
differences.

[Drafterman]

You've failed to provide any differences. And not all differences are
signficant.

You might as well say: "Well Islam calls their god "Allah"" You'd be
right, but you'd still fail to show why that, somehow, validates their
belief.

[LL]

On Jan 7, 10:25 am, Sketch System <sketch.sys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The assertion that someone is right because they say they are is
> utterly meaningless and doesn't answer the question.

LL: That's right, and every religion claims it's right because they
say it is.


**********************************************************************************************

[LL]

On Jan 7, 11:40 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Nothing you've provided here separates Islam from any other religion
> since they all pretty much make the same claims.

LL: All religions arise and are sustained by magical and wishful
thinking.

**********************************************************************************************

[Walt]

Another religion with insignificant differences is Christianity.
Christianity made small but significant reforms to the Roman World
from the bottom up. Although less dramatic than the reforms of Islam,
they have the advantage of having succeeded without violence, even in
the face of violent opposition. Christianity only became
systematically violent when its hierarchy fell under the control of
the Roman political elite, once this elite realized that destroying
Christianity directly was impractical.

In court, juries find the testimony of a working homeowner to be more
believable than the testimony of a homeless, unemployed alcoholic.
The believability of a person, institution, ideology, or religion is
judged in part by its accomplishments.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 7, 3:30 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another religion with insignificant differences is Christianity.
> Christianity made small but significant reforms to the Roman World
> from the bottom up.  Although less dramatic than the reforms of Islam,
> they have the advantage of having succeeded without violence, even in
> the face of violent opposition.  Christianity only became
> systematically violent when its hierarchy fell under the control of
> the Roman political elite, once this elite realized that destroying
> Christianity directly was impractical.
>
> In court, juries find the testimony of a working homeowner to be more
> believable than the testimony of a homeless, unemployed alcoholic.
> The believability of a person, institution, ideology, or religion is
> judged in part by its accomplishments.

Except reach religion claims that its accomplishments are better than
all the others. So how do they validate that their accomplishments are
actually better than all the others?

[Drafterman]

On Jan 7, 3:30 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Another religion with insignificant differences is Christianity.
> Christianity made small but significant reforms to the Roman World
> from the bottom up.  Although less dramatic than the reforms of Islam,
> they have the advantage of having succeeded without violence, even in
> the face of violent opposition.  Christianity only became
> systematically violent when its hierarchy fell under the control of
> the Roman political elite, once this elite realized that destroying
> Christianity directly was impractical.
>
> In court, juries find the testimony of a working homeowner to be more
> believable than the testimony of a homeless, unemployed alcoholic.
> The believability of a person, institution, ideology, or religion is
> judged in part by its accomplishments.

And, more importantly, what is the relevance of the accomplishments of
the adherents of a religion in regards to the validity of that
religious belief? It does not logically follow that because someone
does something good their beliefs are true.

[Walt]

On Jan 7, 4:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:30 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Another religion with insignificant differences is Christianity.
> > Christianity made small but significant reforms to the Roman World
> > from the bottom up. Although less dramatic than the reforms of Islam,
> > they have the advantage of having succeeded without violence, even in
> > the face of violent opposition. Christianity only became
> > systematically violent when its hierarchy fell under the control of
> > the Roman political elite, once this elite realized that destroying
> > Christianity directly was impractical.
>
> > In court, juries find the testimony of a working homeowner to be more
> > believable than the testimony of a homeless, unemployed alcoholic.
> > The believability of a person, institution, ideology, or religion is
> > judged in part by its accomplishments.
>
> Except reach religion claims that its accomplishments are better than
> all the others. So how do they validate that their accomplishments are
> actually better than all the others?

Your blanket statement is not obviously true to me. But it's
irrelevant. I'm not talking self-evaluation of accomplishment. The
evaluation of Islam I linked to above in in Wikipedia (not an Islamic
source).

[Walt]

On Jan 7, 4:06 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 3:30 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Another religion with insignificant differences is Christianity.
> > Christianity made small but significant reforms to the Roman World
> > from the bottom up. Although less dramatic than the reforms of Islam,
> > they have the advantage of having succeeded without violence, even in
> > the face of violent opposition. Christianity only became
> > systematically violent when its hierarchy fell under the control of
> > the Roman political elite, once this elite realized that destroying
> > Christianity directly was impractical.
>
> > In court, juries find the testimony of a working homeowner to be more
> > believable than the testimony of a homeless, unemployed alcoholic.
> > The believability of a person, institution, ideology, or religion is
> > judged in part by its accomplishments.
>
> And, more importantly, what is the relevance of the accomplishments of
> the adherents of a religion in regards to the validity of that
> religious belief? It does not logically follow that because someone
> does something good their beliefs are true.
>

If Adolf Hitler and Elanor Roosevelt both asked to borrow your lawn
mower, saying they would take good care of it, which would you believe
more?

[Max]

Walt,

I'm not sure how utility, functionality or the efficacious use of an
object would matter. If the lawn mower is real (which it is) and can
be compared to other lawn mowers, (which it can) then I can compare &
assess it's utility.

I can also compare & assess the capacity of the operator to utilise
the 'real' object too using valid & observable empirical measures.

Therefore I can assess the operator, the relative abilities of the
operators to 'look after the lawn mower' based on my own measures and
finally to assess the lawn mowers utility as well.

All can be assessed empirically, both qualitatively & quantitatively.

However, this cannot be done (empirical observable analysis) of any
superstitious claims or claimed relative 'truths'.

It does remind me of Life of Brians, Peoples Front of Judea or the
Judean Peoples Front!!

One set of delusion does not outgun the delusion of another. It's all
silliness.

Max

PS. Besides, if the lawn mower had any value, it may be looked after,
but I'm sure I'd never get it back anyway from either of 'em.

[Answer_42]

On Jan 7, 4:42 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> If Adolf Hitler and Elanor Roosevelt both asked to borrow your lawn
> mower, saying they would take good care of it, which would you believe
> more?

How do you do it, Walt?
You always come up with analogies that are totally off the mark!

It must be a divine gift!
________________________________
Religion is now the first obstacle to women's advancement. Religion
pulls human beings backwards, it goes against science and
progressiveness. Religion engulfs people with a fear of the
supernatural. It bars people from laughing and never allows people to
exercise their choice.
-- Taslima Nasrin

[Joe]

Haven't. The point you miss is, neither have you.

On Jan 7, 10:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Observer]

On Jan 7, 5:40 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Haven't.  The point you miss is, neither have you.

Observer
We lack belief in that for which no scientifically verifiable
substantiating data exists or has been presented.
Only a shit for brains would equate that with not having eliminated

yourself from the set of people that have been wrongly convinced by

the evidence you perceive?

Fucking moron.

Psychonomist

[Joe]

You have a belief system and you are convinced of the validity of that
belief system. Unlike mine, yours is actually based on a negative,
i.e. you have a belief system based on the idea that someone else's
belief system is false. Your evidence is the lack of evidence for
that system you consider false.

Not very solid.

[LL]

On Jan 7, 6:00 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have a belief system and you are convinced of the validity of that
> belief system.  Unlike mine, yours is actually based on a negative,
> i.e. you have a belief system based on the idea that someone else's
> belief system is false.  Your evidence is the lack of evidence for
> that system you consider false.
>
> Not very solid.

LL: Yes, it is solid. There is no reason for anyone to accept your
belief system if you can't show solid evidence that it's true. You and
all theists have failed to do that. Since you have failed to do it, it
is the only rational position to take to reject the claim.

With such a misunderstanding of the burden of proof I sincerely hope
for your sake that you or a loved one is never charged with a crime. I
also hope for others' sake that you are never on a jury.

You need to learn some critical thinking skills.

**************************************************************************************

[philosophy]

Joe
Put is another way - it's an absence of belief in God/s
which you are calling negative. The word absence
must be associated with abstinence somewhere along
the line. Now Catholicism, Mormonism, etc teach
abstinence for many things. The argument doesn't
really jell. Abstinence by your definition must be
negative - hence much of your teachings must be
negative. Not very solid is it?

[philosophy]

And yet, because Islam has no Pope or person in charge
of the religion - just Mullahs who claim some sort of
learning, the interpretations in Islam are huge - worse
than the Christians. Also, where Islam originated there
are lots of different tribes who squabble over who is
"right". Add to that mix some fundamental differences
such as the Suffis, etc and I really don't see that
Islam could ever be a "cohesive" force for good.
What we are seeing in action is quite a bit of bad.
I grant there are many Muslims in the world, who
do not display such tendencies, but unless these
people stand up and put the minority extremists
in their place, I really can't see Islam being an
acceptable religion in the west - not when you
get some teachers coming to countries (like
Australia) teaching in the Mosques that Islam
is intolerant of other religions.
Maybe the best idea is to ban all religions!!

[philosophy]

Like suicide bombers?

[Drafterman]

On Jan 7, 4:38 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 4:01 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:30 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Another religion with insignificant differences is Christianity.
> > > Christianity made small but significant reforms to the Roman World
> > > from the bottom up.  Although less dramatic than the reforms of Islam,
> > > they have the advantage of having succeeded without violence, even in
> > > the face of violent opposition.  Christianity only became
> > > systematically violent when its hierarchy fell under the control of
> > > the Roman political elite, once this elite realized that destroying
> > > Christianity directly was impractical.
>
> > > In court, juries find the testimony of a working homeowner to be more
> > > believable than the testimony of a homeless, unemployed alcoholic.
> > > The believability of a person, institution, ideology, or religion is
> > > judged in part by its accomplishments.
>
> > Except reach religion claims that its accomplishments are better than
> > all the others. So how do they validate that their accomplishments are
> > actually better than all the others?
>
> Your blanket statement is not obviously true to me.

Well not shit. As far as I'm aware, you're an atheist, so you're not a
member of a religion. Unless you've been lying.

> But it's
> irrelevant.  I'm not talking self-evaluation of accomplishment.  The
> evaluation of Islam I linked to above in in Wikipedia (not an Islamic
> source).

I am talking about self-evaluation. So why are you posting irrelevant
shit?

[Drafterman]

Neither, they're dead.

[Drafterman]

Since I'm not part of a religion, I'm not a member of the set being
described here.

[Drafterman]

Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
assume you are right to the degree you display here.

On Jan 7, 8:40 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Answer_42]

On Jan 7, 8:40 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Haven't.  The point you miss is, neither have you.

Once again,. my daily quote is appropriate... It seems you did not
understand Drafterman's point, or you did but responded in such a way
that it makes it impossible for us to even begin to understand what
you mean.
_____________________________________________
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 12:58 am, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 6:00 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You have a belief system and you are convinced of the validity of that
> > belief system.  Unlike mine, yours is actually based on a negative,
> > i.e. you have a belief system based on the idea that someone else's
> > belief system is false.  Your evidence is the lack of evidence for
> > that system you consider false.
>
> > Not very solid.
>
> LL: Yes, it is solid. There is no reason for anyone to accept your
> belief system if you can't show solid evidence that it's true.

I disagree.

> You and
> all theists have failed to do that. Since you have failed to do it, it
> is the only rational position to take to reject the claim.
>

Prove that that is the only rational position. Oh wait, you can't.

> With such a misunderstanding of the burden of proof I sincerely hope
> for your sake that you or a loved one is never charged with a crime. I
> also hope for others' sake that you are never on a jury.
>
> You need to learn some critical thinking skills.
>

All your supposed critical thinking skills have failed you when it
comes to the foundation of your atheism, which remains the negation of
another person's experience.

C: I have experience of God in my life.
A: No you don't.
C: How can you possibly know this?
A: I have no experience of God in my life.
C: But you are not me.
A: But I have critical thinking skills.
C: How can you criticize that which is outside your experience?
A: The burden of proof is on you.
C: I didn't say I could prove anything to you, I only said I have
experience of God in my life.
A: No you don't, you have experience of delusion.
C: How can you possibly know this?

. . . and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 3:20 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Joe
> Put is another way - it's an absence of belief in God/s
> which you are calling negative.  The word absence
> must be associated with abstinence somewhere along
> the line.

How?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=absence&searchmode=none
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=abstinence&searchmode=none

It seems your assertion is unsupported.

> Now Catholicism, Mormonism, etc teach
> abstinence for many things.  The argument doesn't
> really jell.  Abstinence by your definition must be
> negative - hence much of your teachings must be
> negative.  Not very solid is it?
>

The core of Catholicism is positive, not negative. So your argument
isn't very solid, is it?

Atheism cannot but be a negation, since it contains the prefix "a-"
meaning "without." But you knew this, I am sure.

[Joe]

You are a member of a set that lacks validation for your belief. In
fact, validation for my belief is possible, and, I have it. Others
may disagree, but their disagreement does not negate the fact that I
can point to validation of mine. Your belief system, on the other
hand, does not admit of even so much as the possibility of
validation. There is nothing to validate. Your belief system is
based on absence of belief.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
> assume you are right to the degree you display here.
>

I have reasons for believing I am right. Solid reasons, unlike yours.

[Joe]

Following a thread is not rocket science.

But here:

D: "How have you eliminated yourself from the set of people that have

been wrongly
convinced by the evidence you percieve? "

J: "Haven't. The point you miss is, neither have you."

Capisce?

[Observer]

On Jan 7, 6:00 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have a belief system and you are convinced of the validity of that
> belief system.

Observer
Once again your messiah complex issues forth untenable mind vomit.
You are genuinely stupid if you believe that a lack of belief
constitutes a belief system.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Just when was it that the mental institution , in which you were
interned , preformed the lobotomy?

 Unlike mine, yours is actually based on a negative,

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

> i.e. you have a belief system based on the idea that someone else's
> belief system is false.

Observer
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Fucking lobotomized/dimwitted/Catholic/Christian . You are just unable
to produce exist no scientifically verifiable substantiating data for
the existence of or any act of any god ever.

Now I doesn't take much to completely discount that for which such
evidence is unavailable as simply a matter of baseless conjecture .

 Your evidence is the lack of evidence for
> that system you consider false.

That is so completely stupid that I am amazed that even you yourld
come up with such pure shit.

Lack of belief = belief.

The child raping priest that told you to say that is typical of the
priest crafts intellectual maladroitness .

Nothing = Something



Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha


I must admit you do manage to keep me entertained.

Not since college have I heard these mindless arguments.

Psychonomist

[Drafterman]

On Jan 8, 11:30 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are a member of a set that lacks validation for your belief. In
> fact, validation for my belief is possible, and, I have it.

Uhm, you just admitted you didn't.

> Others
> may disagree, but their disagreement does not negate the fact that I
> can point to validation of mine.  Your belief system, on the other
> hand, does not admit of even so much as the possibility of
> validation.  There is nothing to validate.

If there is nothing to validate, then there is nothing to not validate
either. Ergo your statement that I lack validation for my belief is
false.

Why don't you make up your mind THEN post? Hmm?

> Your belief system is
> based on absence of belief.
>
> On Jan 8, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Since I'm not part of a religion, I'm not a member of the set being
> > described here.
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:40 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Haven't.  The point you miss is, neither have you.
>
> > > On Jan 7, 10:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think we can all agree that every religion, denomination, sect, has
> > > > members that are convinced of the validity of their belief.
>
> > > > The problem is, they can't all be right. In fact, at most one can be
> > > > entirely correct. That means there are a great deal of people who are
> > > > completely convinced, yet are wrong. They have enough evidence by way
> > > > of miracles, external observation, internal experiences, etc. etc. but
> > > > yet have still arrived at the wrong conclusion.
>
> > > > So, if you are a theist, what, specifically, have you done to rule out
> > > > the possibility that you are wrong about your belief? How have you
> > > > eliminated yourself from the set of people that have been wrongly
> > > > convinced by the evidence you percieve?- Hide quoted text -
>

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

[Drafterman]

On Jan 8, 11:31 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
> > assume you are right to the degree you display here.
>
> I have reasons for believing I am right.

Not according to you.

> Solid reasons, unlike yours.

I doubt you could even correctly identify my reasons.

>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 8:40 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Haven't.  The point you miss is, neither have you.
>
> > > On Jan 7, 10:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think we can all agree that every religion, denomination, sect, has
> > > > members that are convinced of the validity of their belief.
>
> > > > The problem is, they can't all be right. In fact, at most one can be
> > > > entirely correct. That means there are a great deal of people who are
> > > > completely convinced, yet are wrong. They have enough evidence by way
> > > > of miracles, external observation, internal experiences, etc. etc. but
> > > > yet have still arrived at the wrong conclusion.
>
> > > > So, if you are a theist, what, specifically, have you done to rule out
> > > > the possibility that you are wrong about your belief? How have you
> > > > eliminated yourself from the set of people that have been wrongly
> > > > convinced by the evidence you percieve?- Hide quoted text -
>

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

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 12:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:30 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are a member of a set that lacks validation for your belief. In
> > fact, validation for my belief is possible, and, I have it.
>
> Uhm, you just admitted you didn't.
>

No. I admitted that I had not definitively eliminated myself from the
set of people who might be wrong.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 12:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:31 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
> > > assume you are right to the degree you display here.
>
> > I have reasons for believing I am right.
>
> Not according to you.
>

False. I have reasons, which I can identify.

> > Solid reasons, unlike yours.
>
> I doubt you could even correctly identify my reasons.
>

"No evidence."

[Drafterman]

On Jan 8, 12:36 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:30 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are a member of a set that lacks validation for your belief. In
> > > fact, validation for my belief is possible, and, I have it.
>
> > Uhm, you just admitted you didn't.
>
> No.  I admitted that I had not definitively eliminated myself from the
> set of people who might be wrong.

Validating your belief would eliminate you from that set.

So either you have or you haven't. Pick one FIRST, THEN post.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 8, 12:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 11:31 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
> > > > assume you are right to the degree you display here.
>
> > > I have reasons for believing I am right.
>
> > Not according to you.
>
> False.  I have reasons, which I can identify.
>
> > > Solid reasons, unlike yours.
>
> > I doubt you could even correctly identify my reasons.
>
> "No evidence."

Wrong. Try again.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:36 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 11:30 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You are a member of a set that lacks validation for your belief. In
> > > > fact, validation for my belief is possible, and, I have it.
>
> > > Uhm, you just admitted you didn't.
>
> > No.  I admitted that I had not definitively eliminated myself from the
> > set of people who might be wrong.
>
> Validating your belief would eliminate you from that set.
>

No. Validating my belief would lead me to believe I am not in that
set. And, it does. But I can't be sure. I could be wrong. I don't
think I am, but I allow for the possibility.

> So either you have or you haven't. Pick one FIRST, THEN post.
>

There is no such thing as validation in the sense you apparently mean
it. No one can legitimately claim 100% certitude.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 12:43 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 11:31 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
> > > > > assume you are right to the degree you display here.
>
> > > > I have reasons for believing I am right.
>
> > > Not according to you.
>
> > False.  I have reasons, which I can identify.
>
> > > > Solid reasons, unlike yours.
>
> > > I doubt you could even correctly identify my reasons.
>
> > "No evidence."
>
> Wrong. Try again.
>

No, not interested. If you want me to know, you'll tell me. If you
want to make me guess, I did it, you say it is wrong, I don't care to
pursue this game any further.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 8, 1:02 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:36 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 12:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 11:30 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You are a member of a set that lacks validation for your belief. In
> > > > > fact, validation for my belief is possible, and, I have it.
>
> > > > Uhm, you just admitted you didn't.
>
> > > No.  I admitted that I had not definitively eliminated myself from the
> > > set of people who might be wrong.
>
> > Validating your belief would eliminate you from that set.
>
> No.  Validating my belief would lead me to believe I am not in that
> set.  And, it does.  But I can't be sure.  I could be wrong.  I don't
> think I am, but I allow for the possibility.
>
> > So either you have or you haven't. Pick one FIRST, THEN post.
>
> There is no such thing as validation in the sense you apparently mean
> it.  No one can legitimately claim 100% certitude.

I'm not asking for 100% certitude. I'm asking how you have decided
that you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Because, regardless of your acknowledgement in regards to the
possibility of error (which is not consistent with previous arguments
made by you here), you HAVE decided that you're right and everyone
else is wrong.

[Drafterman]

On Jan 8, 1:03 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:43 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 12:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 11:31 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 8, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
> > > > > > assume you are right to the degree you display here.
>
> > > > > I have reasons for believing I am right.
>
> > > > Not according to you.
>
> > > False.  I have reasons, which I can identify.
>
> > > > > Solid reasons, unlike yours.
>
> > > > I doubt you could even correctly identify my reasons.
>
> > > "No evidence."
>
> > Wrong. Try again.
>
> No, not interested.  If you want me to know, you'll tell me.  If you
> want to make me guess, I did it, you say it is wrong, I don't care to
> pursue this game any further.

Then maybe you shouldn't claim knowledge in regards to shit you
clearly know nothing about.

[Walt]

Did you see Charlie Rose's interview with Bob Simon last night? Bob
Simon said pretty much that the Palestinians are screwed four ways to
Sunday. Because, even though most Israelis are willing to remove
Jewish settlements from the West Bank in exchange for peace, there are
now enough Jewish extremists that removing the settlements would cause
the Israeli Army and society to fall apart. The only way to remove
the settlements would be for the US to threaten the existence of
Israel by making further aid dependent on their removal. But he
further said that it's not politically feasible for any US President
to make this threat. Because of the extremism of a minority of
American Jewish and Evangelical Christians, together with the
indifference of most Americans. So consider that before you talk
about how the Muslims won't confront their extremists.

[Walt]

On Jan 7, 6:00 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 4:42 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If Adolf Hitler and Elanor Roosevelt both asked to borrow your lawn
> > mower, saying they would take good care of it, which would you believe
> > more?
>

> How do you do it, Walt?
> You always come up with analogies that are totally off the mark!

What does that have to do with your pants-wetting fear of answering a
simple question?

>
> It must be a divine gift!
> ________________________________
> Religion is now the first obstacle to women's advancement. Religion
> pulls human beings backwards, it goes against science and
> progressiveness. Religion engulfs people with a fear of the
> supernatural. It bars people from laughing and never allows people to
> exercise their choice.
> -- Taslima Nasrin

[Answer_42]

On Jan 8, 1:28 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > If Adolf Hitler and Elanor Roosevelt both asked to borrow your lawn
> > > mower, saying they would take good care of it, which would you believe
> > > more?
>
> > How do you do it, Walt?
> > You always come up with analogies that are totally off the mark!
>
> What does that have to do with your pants-wetting fear of answering a
> simple question?

This has nothing to do with fear.
If the question was in any way connected with the topic, I would
answer it.

But let's answer just for fun.

I would believe Adolf, if something goes wrong with my lawnmower, he
is more likely to be able to fix it than to fuck it all up like an old
lady would.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jan 8, 11:24 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 1:28 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If Adolf Hitler and Elanor Roosevelt both asked to borrow your lawn
> > > > mower, saying they would take good care of it, which would you believe
> > > > more?
>
> > > How do you do it, Walt?
> > > You always come up with analogies that are totally off the mark!
>
> > What does that have to do with your pants-wetting fear of answering a
> > simple question?
>
> This has nothing to do with fear.
> If the question was in any way connected with the topic, I would
> answer it.
>
> But let's answer just for fun.
>
> I would believe Adolf, if something goes wrong with my lawnmower, he
> is more likely to be able to fix it than to fuck it all up like an old
> lady would.

You think a dead fascist is more mechanically inclined than a dead
First Lady?

[Answer_42]

On Jan 8, 11:32 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Following a thread is not rocket science.
>
> But here:
>
> D: "How have you eliminated yourself from the set of people that have
> been wrongly
> convinced by the evidence you percieve? "
>
> J: "Haven't.  The point you miss is, neither have you."
>
> Capisce?

Yes, but the point is that Drafterman cannot be in a set of people who
have successfully (or not) validated their religious beliefs, he has
none.
So you cannot claim that he has not been successful in eliminating
himself from a set of people who might believe in the wrong religion,
he does not believe in any of them.

I understand you are trying to equate atheism with religion, but that
boat has sailed.... Atheism is not a religion, not even a philosophy
or a world view.

[Sketch System]

Atheism is not a belief system - just as the amoral is not a system of
morality, and the apolitical is not a system of politics. Atheism is
only the rejection of a belief system (theism) that has no evidence to
support its central claim (that a god exists).

[stevesmarsh@gmail.com]

If anyone else said that they were repeating the word of god, they
would be rightfully considered to be delusional, what makes Mohamed
any different, or Jesus, or any other prophet? It is interesting that
since the modern age not one legitamate prophet, as if there ever was
one, has come forth. Except for people in mental institutions, or
people on tv asking for money to be sent in, (I hear more and more of
them saying to send in money to plant a seed in the name of god, what
a con), no organized church recognizes any prophets in hundreds of
years. Why has god deserted these faithful and not given them any
more guidence for their religion. Because it has been the biggest con
in history. If Jesus was in modern times he would have been another
David Keresh or Jim Jones. Why people use the ignorance of a
religious sect over 2000 years old that has no proof of anything
except that they can make people believe that snakes can talk without
vocal cords, or the seas were parted by Moses, etc etc.

On Jan 7, 1:17 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In a nutshell, the Moslem argument is:
> 1)  All true prophets of God have a consistent message.
> 2)  Humans typically have a strong tendency to forget/distort
> information.
> 3)  There is good historical evidence that Mohamed was an rational,
> exceptional and honest man.  It is not reasonable to think he was
> lying or crazy when he claimed to be repeating word for word what the
> messenger of God said.  There is good historical evidence that the
> written Quran is an accurate transcription of the recitations of
> Mohamed.  No other prophet or religion is similarly grounded in
> history.
>
> On Jan 7, 12:20 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > the possibility that you are wrong about your belief? How have you

> > > > eliminated yourself from the set of people that have been wrongly

> > > > convinced by the evidence you percieve?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>

> > How does acknowleding that humans have a tendency to distort validate
> > the belief in Islam?- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

For both Christianity and Islam, the answer to your question is that
the last prophet finished all the prophet-ing that was needed.

On Jan 8, 5:44 pm, "stevesma...@gmail.com" <stevesma...@gmail.com>
wrote:

[philosophy]

On Jan 9, 2:27 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 3:20 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Joe
> > Put is another way - it's an absence of belief in God/s
> > which you are calling negative.  The word absence
> > must be associated with abstinence somewhere along
> > the line.
>
> How?
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=absence&searchmode=nonehttp://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=abstinence&searchmode=none

Gosh Joe, do you read what you write? From the above link:
absence: from L. absentem (nom. absens, gen. absentis)
abstinence: from L. abstinentem, prp. of abstinere (see abstain)
These two are definitely linked if you look at the Latin.

You now twist around to say "the core of Catholicism is positive.
I'm not talking about that. Please keep to the subject and stop
twisting and turning.

Of course I know that the "a" of "atheism" means without. The
meaning is without a belief in theism/God. So, just because the
word says without, you are interpreting that as being negative?
What about doing something "with malice", and doing something
"without malice"? Which is the negative here?
I am sure you know the answer to this one, too.

[philosophy]

The question also is, "Can he identify his own?"
He's said he's got solid reasons. I wonder what
they are.

[philosophy]

No I didn't see it. I don't live in your part of the world.

I seem to have upset you by my comment about Muslim
extremists. May I suggest to you that from what you have
said that Palestinians are actually more screwed than you
have suggested. They are also screwed by their Muslim
brothers in other countries. I am not anti-Palestinian
and pro-Jewish. What I am saying is that extremism will
not work to give peace, if indeed the area wants peace.

Both sides are going to have to put aside their "religious
belief systems", both will have to look at things objectively
and both will have to start afresh.

TG and I have discussed this matter in a previous thread
and we decided that the whole situation would have to be
sorted out by international law, not preconceived ideas
based on religion etc. I trust this clarifies my position and
my comments.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 6:49 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:27 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 3:20 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Joe
> > > Put is another way - it's an absence of belief in God/s
> > > which you are calling negative.  The word absence
> > > must be associated with abstinence somewhere along
> > > the line.
>
> > How?
>

> >http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=absence&searchmode=nonehtt...

>
> Gosh Joe, do you read what you write?  From the above link:
> absence: from L. absentem (nom. absens, gen. absentis)
> abstinence:   from L. abstinentem, prp. of abstinere (see abstain)
> These two are definitely linked if you look at the Latin.
>

How are absentem and abstinentem the same word?

> You now twist around to say "the core of Catholicism is positive.
> I'm not talking about that.  Please keep to the subject and stop
> twisting and turning.
>

?

> Of course I know that the "a" of "atheism" means without.  The
> meaning is without a belief in theism/God.  So, just because the
> word says without, you are interpreting that as being negative?
> What about doing something "with malice", and doing something
> "without malice"?  Which is the negative here?
> I am sure you know the answer to this one, too.
>

Yeah, I do. The "mal" in malice means bad. Thus, "without malice" is
actually a double negative, which is why to something without malice
is good.

[philosophy]

Joe I never ever said they were the same word.
Don't twist things. What I said was they were
somewhere linked in their derivation. Oh my, you
do like playing games, don't you? Well, if that's
how you choose to live your life, that's your
choice. Not mine. Cheers

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 7:55 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Joe I never ever said they were the same word.
> Don't twist things.  What I said was they were
> somewhere linked in their derivation.

Again: what makes you think so? Because they have some letters in
common? It does not appear to me that they are related at all. Can
you trace them to the same root, or not?

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 1:18 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 1:03 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:43 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 12:37 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 12:15 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 8, 11:31 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 8, 8:50 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Also, if you haven't validated your belief then it seems arrogant to
> > > > > > > assume you are right to the degree you display here.
>
> > > > > > I have reasons for believing I am right.
>
> > > > > Not according to you.
>
> > > > False.  I have reasons, which I can identify.
>
> > > > > > Solid reasons, unlike yours.
>
> > > > > I doubt you could even correctly identify my reasons.
>
> > > > "No evidence."
>
> > > Wrong. Try again.
>
> > No, not interested.  If you want me to know, you'll tell me.  If you
> > want to make me guess, I did it, you say it is wrong, I don't care to
> > pursue this game any further.
>
> Then maybe you shouldn't claim knowledge in regards to shit you
> clearly know nothing about.
>

I bet you haven't got a single reason beyond the one I already cited.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 2:33 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:32 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Following a thread is not rocket science.
>
> > But here:
>
> > D: "How have you eliminated yourself from the set of people that have
> > been wrongly
> > convinced by the evidence you percieve? "
>
> > J: "Haven't.  The point you miss is, neither have you."
>
> > Capisce?
>
> Yes, but the point is that Drafterman cannot be in a set of people who
> have successfully (or not) validated their religious beliefs, he has
> none.

That wasn't what was said. What was said was, "the set of people that
have been wrongly convinced by the evidence [they] perceive."

> So you cannot claim that he has not been successful in eliminating
> himself from a set of people who might believe in the wrong religion,
> he does not believe in any of them.
>

Not talking about a religion per se, talking about a belief system.
Atheism is part of Drafterman's.

> I understand you are trying to equate atheism with religion, but that
> boat has sailed.... Atheism is not a religion, not  even a philosophy
> or a world view.

Atheism is a position with regard to the proposition, "God exists."
It is the negative position on that proposition. As such, atheism is
a belief, and as a belief, it forms part of the belief system of
whoever holds it.

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 1:17 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 1:02 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 12:42 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 8, 12:36 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 8, 12:14 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 8, 11:30 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are a member of a set that lacks validation for your belief. In
> > > > > > fact, validation for my belief is possible, and, I have it.
>
> > > > > Uhm, you just admitted you didn't.
>
> > > > No.  I admitted that I had not definitively eliminated myself from the
> > > > set of people who might be wrong.
>
> > > Validating your belief would eliminate you from that set.
>
> > No.  Validating my belief would lead me to believe I am not in that
> > set.  And, it does.  But I can't be sure.  I could be wrong.  I don't
> > think I am, but I allow for the possibility.
>
> > > So either you have or you haven't. Pick one FIRST, THEN post.
>
> > There is no such thing as validation in the sense you apparently mean
> > it.  No one can legitimately claim 100% certitude.
>
> I'm not asking for 100% certitude. I'm asking how you have decided
> that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
>
> Because, regardless of your acknowledgement in regards to the
> possibility of error (which is not consistent with previous arguments
> made by you here), you HAVE decided that you're right and everyone
> else is wrong.
>

Where to begin?

[Joe]

On Jan 8, 6:50 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> The question also is, "Can he identify his own?"
> He's said he's got solid reasons.  I wonder what
> they are.
>

In my experience, any interest an atheist shows in this subject is
disingenuous.

[Foxjazz]

Joe, you have to elaborate on that one.
We are not genuinely interested in the subject?

I bare to differ. I am genuinely interested in the subject of these
two world views. I am just not interested in ever becoming a Christian
again, because I know it's a false belief system.

[philosophy]

Well, that's your judgement call,
not mine. So much for Christian
fellowship.

[philosophy]

As stated before:
absence: comes from L. absentem (nom. absens, gen. absentis)
abstinence: comes from L. abstinentem, prp. of abstinere (see

abstain)
These two are definitely linked if you look at the Latin.

If you can't see the relevance here, can you see the relevance in
amo
amas
amat
amamus
amatus
amant?
If not, then that's okay. But Latin 101 would be of help to you.

[philosophy]

Refer to my question of you, above, regarding Latin 101.

[Drafterman]

I don't know, at the beginning?

[Walt]

Many Zionist are secular, and would have been fine with a Jewish
homeland that wasn't the biblically-promised land. Palestinian
resistance in the past was largely secular. Islamic Palestinian
resistance did not originate the tactic of targeting civilians
(although it may be that they have increased the scale of the use of
this tactic). It's simplistic to conclude this conflict could easily
be resolved without the religious aspect.

[Answer_42]

On Jan 8, 9:51 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Atheism is a position with regard to the proposition, "God exists."
> It is the negative position on that proposition.  As such, atheism is
> a belief, and as a belief, it forms part of the belief system of
> whoever holds it.

How many bloody times do we have to say it?
Atheism is not a belief system, just like a bald person is not a
person with a different hair system.
________________________________
There is in every village a torch: the schoolmaster -- and an
extinguisher: the parson.
-- Victor Hugo

[philosophy]

I'm not suggesting it will be easily resolved without the
religious aspect. What I'm saying is that unless both sides
put the religious aspect aside, and work on some sort of
agreed guidelines and international law involvement, I
doubt if the situation will ever be resolved.

[Joe]

Ok.