Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Prediction on atheism trends in the US
0 views
Skip to first unread message
pnyikos
May 23, 2012, 10:51:43 PM5/23/12
to nyi...@bellsouth.net
I have added alt.agnosticism. If you also want to add alt.atheism,
Uirgil, that's OK by me.
On May 23, 3:08 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article <27lpr79n5guo43pipj0ogaagftaigaj...@4ax.com>,
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > An atheist, by definition, denies/rejects the existence of God. Now what
> > evidence does one have for such a firm statement? The answer is none. Many
> > people question, and hence fall way. But falling away is not turning to
> > flat-out rejection. I'm living proof of that.
>
> And a-theist is, by definition,
No, by an etymological literalness that is not borne out by actual
everyday practice.
> at least to anyone except a blind
> theist,
...and an agnostic with acute vision...
> one who does not believe in any gods. The prefix 'a' merely
> means 'without'.
Sorry, bub. You are encroaching on the turf of us agnostics.
> And you blind theists apply it as much to those who are mere
> non-believers in gods as to those who believe there are no gods,
There are some blind theists who have no use for agnostics and think
of them as "the timid cousins of atheists". It is these blind theists
who agree with you that "atheist" simply means someone who does not
believe in gods.
> so you refute your own phony definition.
>
> I suspect, but do not claim to know for sure because I cannot prove,
> that there are no gods.
Hence, you are an agnostic with leanings towards atheism. I have
intellectual leanings in that direction myself, but emotionally my
leanings are in the opposite direction. That is where we differ. We
are two different kinds of agnostics.
To be precise, I cherish the hope that, despite all the evidence to
the contrary, the God of Christians does exist. But I too much of a
realist to believe it. But neither do I disbelieve it.
> An honest theist would admit to only believing in, but not knowing for
> sure because he or she could not prove, the existence of whatever gods
> he or she believes in.
At least not with mathematical certainty. Some Christians have the
annoying habit of using "proof" where they mean "evidence," and to
return the "favor," most atheists I've encountered on Usenet use
"evidence" when they mean "proof," as in, "there is no evidence for
there being a god."
> it is remarkable how few of the theists who post to alt.atheism are, at
> least in this sense, honest. And certainly, duckgumbo is not one of
> them.
I don't read alt.atheism very much, so I can't vouch for that
statement. And in talk.origins, there are too few theists posting for
me to be able to keep track of them.
That may seem paradoxical, but the fact that there are so few theists
means that the militant atheists have plenty of time for attacking me,
and attack me they do. And so I have no time to follow the theists
around.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
Uirgil, that's OK by me.
On May 23, 3:08 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article <27lpr79n5guo43pipj0ogaagftaigaj...@4ax.com>,
>
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > An atheist, by definition, denies/rejects the existence of God. Now what
> > evidence does one have for such a firm statement? The answer is none. Many
> > people question, and hence fall way. But falling away is not turning to
> > flat-out rejection. I'm living proof of that.
>
> And a-theist is, by definition,
No, by an etymological literalness that is not borne out by actual
everyday practice.
> at least to anyone except a blind
> theist,
...and an agnostic with acute vision...
> one who does not believe in any gods. The prefix 'a' merely
> means 'without'.
Sorry, bub. You are encroaching on the turf of us agnostics.
> And you blind theists apply it as much to those who are mere
> non-believers in gods as to those who believe there are no gods,
There are some blind theists who have no use for agnostics and think
of them as "the timid cousins of atheists". It is these blind theists
who agree with you that "atheist" simply means someone who does not
believe in gods.
> so you refute your own phony definition.
>
> I suspect, but do not claim to know for sure because I cannot prove,
> that there are no gods.
Hence, you are an agnostic with leanings towards atheism. I have
intellectual leanings in that direction myself, but emotionally my
leanings are in the opposite direction. That is where we differ. We
are two different kinds of agnostics.
To be precise, I cherish the hope that, despite all the evidence to
the contrary, the God of Christians does exist. But I too much of a
realist to believe it. But neither do I disbelieve it.
> An honest theist would admit to only believing in, but not knowing for
> sure because he or she could not prove, the existence of whatever gods
> he or she believes in.
At least not with mathematical certainty. Some Christians have the
annoying habit of using "proof" where they mean "evidence," and to
return the "favor," most atheists I've encountered on Usenet use
"evidence" when they mean "proof," as in, "there is no evidence for
there being a god."
> it is remarkable how few of the theists who post to alt.atheism are, at
> least in this sense, honest. And certainly, duckgumbo is not one of
> them.
I don't read alt.atheism very much, so I can't vouch for that
statement. And in talk.origins, there are too few theists posting for
me to be able to keep track of them.
That may seem paradoxical, but the fact that there are so few theists
means that the militant atheists have plenty of time for attacking me,
and attack me they do. And so I have no time to follow the theists
around.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu
0 new messages