I am not an atheist
Andrew Gray
Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a poignant
moment for me.
Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
I say this now because I have realized that I am defined by what I *am*, not
by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
To put it another way: I don't believe in leprechauns. Does that make me
an afaerist? I don't deliberately kick hard things when I have no shoes
on. Does that make me an 'astubber'? Should I go through life explaining
to people "I don't stub, sorry"?
So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power to
something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
specific category of absurdists".
How much noise and fury has been spent in a.a over the past 17-or-so years
about what the word atheist means? Or that we can't be moral because
we're atheists. Or that "If you're an atheist, then you must (dis)believe
in ..."
But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
andy
Roy Sinnamond
Gray <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I know where you're coming from and I respect your position; however -
If we lived in a world teeming with "leprechaunists" who for millennia
had been suppressing any evidence that rainbows didn't actually meet
the ground, burning those who supposed that the pot o' gold was
metaphorical, and torturing those who believed in the wrong color of
Lucky Charm...
Damn right I'd call myself an aleprechaunist.
--
Roy Sinnamond
aa #1798 EAC Minister of Cognitive Dissonance
roysinnamond at mac dot com
"That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"
Jeremy Martin
>But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
>want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
>you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
You're an atheist. Deal with it. Stop the feel-good-rub-my-balls
crap.
It makes sense to call yourself an "atheist" because there are so
many theists around. Along that same line, it would be *real*
fucking silly to be "alephrechaun" because it isn't a common
belief.
You're unique. Just like everybody else, right?
--
Jeremy
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
np: there's no music. none at all.
"If as Queen sang, Fat Bottomed Girls Make The Rockin' World Go
Round, isn't it about time the United States received some
recognition for its contribution to astrophysics?"
- Unknown
Dave W
news:LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
You may not like a certain label but the preconception of a label is the
problem of the beholder...A person might have some sort of preconception
of guys named andy or people people with a certain hair color. Would you
change yor name, dye your hair? Atheists are marginalized enough as it
is without "us" being uncomfortable with being labeled as such...
Prophet Zappa said: "You are what you is".
--
+-+-+-+-+ +-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|D|a|v|e| |W| |a|a|#|1|9|6|7|
+-+-+-+-+ +-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Herb Martin
> crap.
It's about belief, so he is whatever he BELIEVES
himself to be.
Deal with it -- and leave your balls out of it.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
raven1
wrote:
>
>Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a poignant
>moment for me.
>
>Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
>myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
Do you believe in any kind of sky pixie? No? You're an atheist.
>
>I say this now because I have realized that I am defined by what I *am*, not
>by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
Very good, but...
>
>To put it another way: I don't believe in leprechauns. Does that make me
>an afaerist?
Technically, yes, or perhaps, an asidheist.
> I don't deliberately kick hard things when I have no shoes
>on. Does that make me an 'astubber'? Should I go through life explaining
>to people "I don't stub, sorry"?
No, but if someone asks...
>
>So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power to
>something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
>specific category of absurdists".
I agree that theism is patently absurd, but it seems to me just as
absurd not to recognize how much power it actually has in public
life...
>
>How much noise and fury has been spent in a.a over the past 17-or-so years
>about what the word atheist means? Or that we can't be moral because
>we're atheists. Or that "If you're an atheist, then you must (dis)believe
>in ..."
>
>But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
>want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
>you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
Agreed, which, like it or not, makes you an atheist! ;-) Sorry, and
welcome to the club. Dues are payable in full on the first and
fifteenth of the month.
>
>andy
Denis Loubet
news:LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
I see your position, and I too respect it.
But the phrase "I don't believe in gods" and "atheist" are the same thing,
except one's shorter.
So, in the interest of efficiency...
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Crazyalec
> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
++FINALLY!!!
Somebody realized there is no such thing as atheist.That is what religion
(theism) label you and you go along with it like a clueless sheep.
Just read my post a few days ago where I said that as much I support
atheists,I'm not an atheist.I'm a translator.I translate religion into
English.
Here is more on that http://tinyurl.com/33tf
Its time for evolution.So called atheists have to CHANGE in order to survive
in a battle of religions for a world denominaton.Or you will be eaten.
Don't believe me?
There are no atheists in muslim countries,they are dead.
I can imagine what will happen when Christian Taliban get in a power in
America.
Here is a definition.
Atheist (by definition) is a person accepting the notion that there is a
theism.Its just he's not a theist.A-theist=non-theist.
But there is no theism
Its a hoax
Its a business run by a con artists using 'belief' to justify money and
power.
Just like communism.
Did you think communism was a good idea?My guess,no.So why do you think
religion any different?
Andy,I'm glad you starting to evolve,keep posting more,educate people.I've
been doing it for year,its a slow process.
Maybe we can work on a website or something.
I even wrote to AA,they read my letter on a air,agreed and ...nothing.
They just don't get it.
But how they gonna solve the problem if they don't understand a motive?
Remember my quote,one day it will be famous.
GREATEST TRICK RELIGION EVER PULLED WAS CONVINCING THE WORLD ITS A BELIEF.
Crazyalec
Herb Martin
> > Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
> > myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
> >snip
> ++FINALLY!!!
> Somebody realized there is no such thing as atheist.That is what religion
> (theism) label you and you go along with it like a clueless sheep.
No, he only said that HE is not an atheist;
obviously there are hundreds (or thousands)
of atheists who visit here.
It is HIS choice to believe or not believe or
to set his own label for what he THINKS.
Now if he DOES something like "hit a baseball"
we others might call him a ball player, but it is
about thought and is HIS CHOICE how he defines
his own thought.
What could be more NAZI or totalitarian than both
the atheists and the deists telling this fellow what
he has to believe or label himself.
> Just read my post a few days ago where I said that as much I support
> atheists,I'm not an atheist.I'm a translator.I translate religion into
> English.
Ok, you are a translator. Good. Go away.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
> Here is more on that http://tinyurl.com/33tf
Crazyalec
> absurd not to recognize how much power it actually has in public
> life...
>
++Don't you think that getting into power (and money) is what religion is
all about?
I know its hard to break away from 'atheist' label,but its time to think.
Its time for a new name for people who understand that there is no such
thing as theism.
Its a hoax
Its a con game.
The purpose of a con game is to sell a 'story' for a profit.
Can't solve a crime,if you don't understand a motive.
Crazyalec
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/religionisabusiness/
>
Crazyalec
> No, he only said that HE is not an atheist;
> obviously there are hundreds (or thousands)
> of atheists who visit here.
>
> It is HIS choice to believe or not believe or
> to set his own label for what he THINKS.
>
> Now if he DOES something like "hit a baseball"
> we others might call him a ball player, but it is
> about thought and is HIS CHOICE how he defines
> his own thought.
snip
Herb,I'm not an atheist,but I think you give atheists a bad name with your
philosophical nonsense.
Speak English.
Mark Gradwell
"Andrew Gray" <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
poignant
> moment for me.
Ok.
>
> Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
Oh.
>
> I say this now because I have realized that I am defined by what I *am*,
not
> by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
Hello Andy:o).
>
> To put it another way: I don't believe in leprechauns. Does that make me
> an afaerist? I don't deliberately kick hard things when I have no shoes
> on. Does that make me an 'astubber'? Should I go through life explaining
> to people "I don't stub, sorry"?
Right with you so far.
>
> So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power
to
> something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
> specific category of absurdists".
Ok.
>
> How much noise and fury has been spent in a.a over the past 17-or-so years
> about what the word atheist means? Or that we can't be moral because
> we're atheists. Or that "If you're an atheist, then you must (dis)believe
> in ..."
And of course one goes ahead and tries to explain why they are wrong.
>
> But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
> want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
> you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
Here is where we differ. I define my beliefs in relation to what others
think. They think God exists and I don't. So I'm an atheist.
>
> andy
--
Yours,
Mark
aa#1478
^nemo^
news:LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
positive title. Or Freethinker.
Just a couple of thoughts... I hate to see someone going through life
without a proper label. {;-)
> andy
>
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Quotemeister since March 2002
**************************************************
Mike Ruskai
I suppose you're not a human, either.
Or a mammal.
Or composed of matter.
I understand what you're trying to say, but the line of absurdity is drawn
quite far after narrowing you down as an "atheist".
The simple fact is, you're an atheist regardless of whether or not you
adopt the label, based on your last statement.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
Zeplerfer
>> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
>
><snip>
>
>++FINALLY!!!
>Somebody realized there is no such thing as atheist.That is what religion
>(theism) label you and you go along with it like a clueless sheep.
?? I'm the only one calling myself an atheist. The theists to prefer to call me
"unsaved" or "godless heathen" ;)
>Just read my post a few days ago where I said that as much I support
>atheists,I'm not an atheist.I'm a translator.I translate religion into
>English.
Wow, I didn't know it was possible... you must be very fluent in gibberish ;)
>Here is more on that http://tinyurl.com/33tf
>Its time for evolution.So called atheists have to CHANGE in order to survive
>in a battle of religions for a world denominaton.Or you will be eaten.
>Don't believe me?
Sure, from now on I'm an *athiest*!
>There are no atheists in muslim countries,they are dead.
>I can imagine what will happen when Christian Taliban get in a power in
>America.
But no one will think to look for the *athiests* <eg>
>Here is a definition.
>Atheist (by definition) is a person accepting the notion that there is a
>theism.Its just he's not a theist.A-theist=non-theist.
>But there is no theism
>Its a hoax
>Its a business run by a con artists using 'belief' to justify money and
>power.
>Just like communism.
Now, I agree that some people use religion to gain money and power, but to get
it from people they have to make the people believe.
I'm not sure who said it, but I like the quote "Religion is based on the
cleverness of the few and the gullibility of the many."
>Did you think communism was a good idea? My guess, no
In theory? Yes. Communism is based on compassion, capitalism on greed. You can
guess why outside of theory capitalism works...
>So why do you think religion any different?
I suppose in theory religions could do alot of good. But they aren't based in
reality so they're doing a disservice to their followers by deluding them.
>Andy,I'm glad you starting to evolve,keep posting more,educate people.I've
>been doing it for year,its a slow process.
>Maybe we can work on a website or something.
>
>I even wrote to AA,they read my letter on a air,agreed and ...nothing.
>They just don't get it.
>But how they gonna solve the problem if they don't understand a motive?
Well, if you know a way to get people to stop desiring wealth and money I'd
love to hear it...
>Remember my quote,one day it will be famous.
>GREATEST TRICK RELIGION EVER PULLED WAS CONVINCING THE WORLD ITS A BELIEF.
>Crazyalec
~Zeplerfer #423
I am *not* the leader of the EAC Denial Dept.
In fact, there is *no* EAC.
quibbler
gra...@pacbell.net says...
>
> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a poignant
> moment for me.
>
> Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
beliefs. If it helps you to define yourself in positive, rather than
negative terms then by all means do so. Labels like "freethinker" were
developed to deal with exactly this problem. Remember that atheist is an
historical category invented by theists to describe their opponents.
However, for better or worse the terminology is largely the one that
everyone uses to talk about people who don't share belief in theism.
Bertrand Russell noted that he didn't like to use the term "atheist" to
describe himself most of the time because it was too "loaded" and too
subject to misinterpretation by the vast majority of people. He would
often describe himself as an agnostic, even though he knew the label
didn't entirely fit, because it was less likely to create such a strong
reaction.
>
> I say this now because I have realized that I am defined by what I *am*, not
> by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
>
> To put it another way: I don't believe in leprechauns. Does that make me
> an afaerist? I don't deliberately kick hard things when I have no shoes
> on. Does that make me an 'astubber'? Should I go through life explaining
> to people "I don't stub, sorry"?
>
> So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power to
> something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
> specific category of absurdists".
>
> How much noise and fury has been spent in a.a over the past 17-or-so years
> about what the word atheist means? Or that we can't be moral because
> we're atheists. Or that "If you're an atheist, then you must (dis)believe
> in ..."
The noise is important, IMO. It's fine that you have figured one what
you do and do not believe, but many people are still grappling with these
things. I don't begrudge them that if they really are searching. But I
do admit it can be tedious to listen to the dogmatic rhetoric at times.
> But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
> want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
> you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
I say the same thing. But I find sometimes it is the fastest, easiest,
way of communicating with people. My parents aren't really religious at
all. At best they believe in mysticism and new age stuff. But recently
I was with them for thanksgiving and my mom insisted out of habit that we
say "Grace" before the meal. That would be fine but she wanted me to say
it. So I said "I'm Glad for this and that..." and added a bit jestfully
at the end "... and BTW, Great God, grant that twice two be not four."
She wasn't sure what the last part was about, so I explained "well mom,
I'm glad for many things, but you are asking me to pray knowing that I'm
an atheist, so I wanted to offer the same prayer that Turgenev did, which
sums up nicely what I think all praying actually is." She had no problem
with that, once she was reminded of my beliefs. She just likes ceremony
of some kind or other I think. But I felt I had to do this because
sometimes parents like to conveniently "forget" certain things and I
wanted them to remember that this is part of who I am.
J Forbes
>
> "Andrew Gray" <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
-snip-
> > But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
> > want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
> > you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
> >
> Fair enough. What about labeling yourself a secular humanist? That's a more
> positive title. Or Freethinker.
>
> Just a couple of thoughts... I hate to see someone going through life
> without a proper label. {;-)
The designer labels are best; they keep the economy going!
Jim
EAC Wordplay Dept
Smock
> > Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
> > myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
> >snip
>
> ++FINALLY!!!
> Somebody realized there is no such thing as atheist.That is what religion
> (theism) label you and you go along with it like a clueless sheep.
I prefer the term "realist" for those of us who
see through the con game variously called religion,
belief, or faith. Yet we must use "atheist" and
"atheism" (as in this NG's title) to get the rest of the
clueless world to even try to understand what we've
come to know.
Angelbsbl
<crazy...@yahoo.nospam.cominvalid> writes:
>++FINALLY!!!
>Somebody realized there is no such thing as atheist.
You realize that with your constant insistance that other agree with you and
telling others what to think that you sound like you are trying to start your
own religion? Next he'll be asking for funds to build a "meeting house."
maky m.
> > You're an atheist. Deal with it. Stop the feel-good-rub-my-balls
> > crap.
>
> It's about belief, so he is whatever he BELIEVES
> himself to be.
>
> Deal with it -- and leave your balls out of it.
you know better than mess with martin, jeremy martin that is. dumbest
atheist around these here neck of the woods...
Chani
"Andrew Gray" <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
It is your prerogative to define yourself as anything you want. Nobody says
you have to be an atheist, agnostic, freethinker, freelover, or anything
else, or use any of those title to describe yourself. Just be happy and
content with your thoughts and actions, and it is all well.
--
Chani
atheist #1118
Head of the EAC! Why? Because I said so!!
overli...@sbcglobal.net
>
> andy
The Ghost In The Machine
<gra...@pacbell.net>
wrote
on Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:43 GMT
<LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>:
>
> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a poignant
> moment for me.
[rest snipped]
If you're not a theist, you're an atheist, by definition.
The prefix 'a-' or 'an-' means 'no' or 'not'.
See also
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Plasmatron
> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a poignant
> moment for me.
> Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
> I say this now because I have realized that I am defined by what I *am*, not
> by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
> To put it another way: I don't believe in leprechauns. Does that make me
> an afaerist? I don't deliberately kick hard things when I have no shoes
I would say yes, but it would only come up if you're dealing with an
evangical faerist ;)
> on. Does that make me an 'astubber'? Should I go through life explaining
> to people "I don't stub, sorry"?
Only if they are demanding that you purposely stub your toe.
> So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power to
> something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
> specific category of absurdists".
The difference is that the religious tend to do all in their power to
shove their delusions down everyone else's throats, while most other
absurdists don't.
If there were a bunch of faerists going around making a whole bunch of
rediculous legislation based on their belief in leprechauns and generally
making life miserable for anyone who dares to not believe in leprechauns
then there would be an alt.afaerist group filled with people banded
together and fighting off faerists and so on and so forth.
> How much noise and fury has been spent in a.a over the past 17-or-so years
> about what the word atheist means? Or that we can't be moral because
> we're atheists. Or that "If you're an atheist, then you must (dis)believe
> in ..."
> But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
> want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
> you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
Well, as a deist I can do that bit: God is that entity which created
the universe. Now you can give a clear "No", indicating that you do not
believe that some entity existed prior to the universe that created it.
--
The Left Reverend Plasmatron hotpop com
"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think"
- Niels Bohr
The Plasmatron
Interesting idea, but what about non-religious theists like myself? I
believe in a god, but I am not a member of any religion. I call myself a
deist because I fit their definition, just like I used to call myself an
atheist when I did not believe in any gods. There is no central
organization of deists any more than for atheists. There are no people
who benifit financially from me being a deist, except maybe the ACLU when
I get out of debt, but I was planning to give money to them back when I
was an atheist too. So, what do you have to say about that?
H...@bells.net
wrote:
We atheists shouldn't need a label - it's just attracts more religious
fire, like the ones spewing posts trying to inject words like "belief"
"religion" "cult" "the Gods of atheism" - all kinds of inapplicable
words. They call it "planting seeds". It's the same old change one
word at a time until the opponent agrees game, then holding him to the
original statement.
Anything to plant seeds, get the foot in the door, etc.
It's so simple - theists believe in god, atheists do not. But they
just won't leave us alone.
We don't have to prove anything because we aren't the ones pushing an
idea that needs proof and hasn't been proven since the start of it.
I can defend myself in an argument with a theist.
I think that being an atheist gives them less things to spin, as the
word is provable and simple - "a" for "not" and "theist" put together
doesn't give much wiggleroom.
But, then again, I've run into people who can't comprehend the
word"no". I carry cards with the word "no" defined in several
dictionaries to hand out to these people. And they still don't get it.
They have no concept of the possibility that they could be wrong.
H Bells
Herb Martin
> atheist around these here neck of the woods...
Oh....
<grin>
Petteri Sulonen
>
> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a
> poignant moment for me.
>
> Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been
> calling myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
>
> I say this now because I have realized that I am defined by what I
> *am*, not by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
[snip rest of story]
I normally don't do "me too" posts, but I had to for this one.
(Although, to be precise, *I'm* not Andy.)
Since I last was active on this NG, either I or this place has changed.
There's suddenly not much going on here where I feel compelled or even
terribly interested in participating.
Discussions on a.a have been pretty seminal for me: they've been a major
factor in forming my outlook on life, especially the ones about ethics
and society. Atheism, of course, has been rather central to these
discussions -- since most modern societies do derive from one religious
philosophy or another, finding non-theistic alternatives is not at all
obvious.
But, well, here we are. At this point, I feel very much like you do:
atheism is entirely incidental to me. My self-image consists of things
that I am (e.g., someone who dabbles in photography), rather than things
that I am not (e.g., someone who believes in a god).
/Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
Jeremy Martin
>> you know better than mess with martin, jeremy martin that is. dumbest
>> atheist around these here neck of the woods...
>
>Oh....
>
>
><grin>
Oh, fuck you both. As for what you wrote..
>It's about belief, so he is whatever he BELIEVES
>himself to be.
I don't give a flying fuck what you believe. Reality is reality.
Deal with it.
--
Jeremy
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
np: soul whirling somewhere - waking
"A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and
his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the
world."
- Oscar Wilde
stoney
<He...@LearnQuick.Com>, Message ID:
<PrAI9.125193$Kj1.5...@twister.austin.rr.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>> You're an atheist. Deal with it. Stop the feel-good-rub-my-balls
>> crap.
>
>It's about belief, so he is whatever he BELIEVES
>himself to be.
>
>Deal with it -- and leave your balls out of it.
Especially out of the golf course washer........
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
Herb Martin
> Oh, fuck you both. As for what you wrote..
Well, that certainly explains YOU.
I also know that I have won the argument when someone
resorts to such rudeness.
Thanks for playing.
Jeremy Martin
>> ><grin>
>> Oh, fuck you both. As for what you wrote..
>
>Well, that certainly explains YOU.
>
>I also know that I have won the argument when someone
>resorts to such rudeness.
>
>Thanks for playing.
What argument? Apparently you didn't read it because you snipped
it, jackass.
--
Jeremy
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
np: Man Sueto - Sentimental Son
"A watchdog group has found that cable tv has much more
violence, language, and sex than network tv... Although to be
fair, this study was done before Fox's "All Star Salute To
Cock!"
- Jon Stewart
Beowulf
<mrbu...@pattonisgod.com> ejaculated:
>(Andrew Gray <gra...@pacbell.net>):
>
>>But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
>>want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
>>you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
>
>You're an atheist. Deal with it. Stop the feel-good-rub-my-balls
>crap.
>
>It makes sense to call yourself an "atheist" because there are so
>many theists around. Along that same line, it would be *real*
>fucking silly to be "alephrechaun" because it isn't a common
>belief.
>
>You're unique. Just like everybody else, right?
If you're one in a million, that means there are 1,000 people in
China, just like you.
--
All your beer are belong to us.
Jeremy Martin
Bwaha. Good one.
--
Jeremy
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
np: the music died. IT DIED!
"The chief product of an automated society is a widespread and
deepening sense of boredom."
- C. Northcote Parkinson
esnp...@bitusmeus.com
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:43 GMT Andrew Gray <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snippage to the two most relevant points]
>> So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power
>> to
>> something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
>> specific category of absurdists".
>
> The difference is that the religious tend to do all in their power to
> shove their delusions down everyone else's throats, while most other
> absurdists don't.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not about to sit idly by and let a bunch of
ninnies try to take over the government unopposed. In a limited context of
fighting against the absurdists' attempts to oppress me, then referring to
myself with a label like "atheist" is appropriate -- it helps to define my
position. It just doesn't define ME.
>> But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
>> want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
>> you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
>
> Well, as a deist I can do that bit: God is that entity which created
> the universe. Now you can give a clear "No", indicating that you do not
> believe that some entity existed prior to the universe that created it.
That's not really a significant definition. How big is it? What does it
smell like? Where can it be found? What physical properties does it
possess? How, and more importantly, why did it create the universe? How
much energy does it consume -- i.e. how does it fit into the whole entropy
equation of the universe?
What created it, or how (and why) did it come into being?
Unless it can be understood -- or felt, or seen, etc. -- in some repeatable
and demonstrable way, then its existence remains an arbitrary (and
therefore absurd) proposition. Arbitrary propositions cannot be evaluated
as either true or false.
Andy Gray
esnp...@bitusmeus.com
> In alt.atheism, Andrew Gray
> <gra...@pacbell.net>
> wrote
> on Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:43 GMT
> <LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>:
>>
>> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a
>> poignant moment for me.
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> If you're not a theist, you're an atheist, by definition.
> The prefix 'a-' or 'an-' means 'no' or 'not'.
Congratulations for being the first to point out the obvious while
completely missing the point.
esnp...@bitusmeus.com
> In article <LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
> gra...@pacbell.net says...
> Remember that atheist is an
> historical category invented by theists to describe their opponents.
That is entirely the point. The term is often used the way people like rush
lamebrain use "liberal". Whether the dictionary-quoting shortsighted ones
like to believe it or not, English is a living language. As such,
"atheist" means a whole lot more than "a - theist".
>> How much noise and fury has been spent in a.a over the past 17-or-so
>> years
>> about what the word atheist means? Or that we can't be moral because
>> we're atheists. Or that "If you're an atheist, then you must
>> (dis)believe in ..."
>
> The noise is important, IMO. It's fine that you have figured one what
> you do and do not believe, but many people are still grappling with these
> things. I don't begrudge them that if they really are searching. But I
> do admit it can be tedious to listen to the dogmatic rhetoric at times.
I'm talking about the "religious wars" (pun) between "strong" and "weak"
atheists, and all atheists vs agnostics that constantly flare up here. In
past iterations of my activity in a.a (many years ago), posting anything
remotely like an explanation of the logic behind "strong" atheism would get
one mercilessly flamed by militant "weak" atheists (and vice versa). I've
only been lurking again a couple of weeks, but I doubt this has changed.
That kind of "noise" only exacerbates the problem I'm referring to. It's
bad enough to have the absurdists tell me what I have to believe in based
on the "atheist" label. But to have other atheists excoriate me for not
fitting their definition is too much.
> But recently
> I was with them for thanksgiving and my mom insisted out of habit that we
> say "Grace" before the meal. That would be fine but she wanted me to say
> it. So I said "I'm Glad for this and that..." and added a bit jestfully
> at the end "... and BTW, Great God, grant that twice two be not four."
I like it! In my family, at one thanksgiving dinner attended by an uncle's
family (who are all of the more ridiculous fundy type), my three-year-old
cousin (I was 8 at the time) was asked to say Grace. What came out was
"God this food". The heathen side of the family has stuck with that for
over 30 years now.
andy
andy
esnp...@bitusmeus.com
> Andrew Gray <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
>
>>
>> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a
>> poignant moment for me.
>>
>> Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been
>> calling myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
> You may not like a certain label but the preconception of a label is the
> problem of the beholder...A person might have some sort of preconception
> of guys named andy or people people with a certain hair color. Would you
> change yor name, dye your hair? Atheists are marginalized enough as it
> is without "us" being uncomfortable with being labeled as such...
>
> Prophet Zappa said: "You are what you is".
And we all do miss the great and wonderful Prophet :)
But my point is that "I am not my hair color, I am not my name". Yes, in
the limited context of my relationship with people who believe in sky
pixies or invisible buddies or pink unicorns, then it's appropriate to use
this label to distinguish me from them.
But for me to declare, with blaring of trumpets, etc. "I am Andy, Atheist"
is to ignore all that there is about me. This label refers to something
that ought, by any logic, to be a comical absurdity no different from
"asidheist" or "afriedbananasandwichist".
andy
esnp...@bitusmeus.com
>> Yesterday it occurred to me that I'm not an atheist. I've been calling
>> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
>>snip
>
> ++FINALLY!!!
> Somebody realized there is no such thing as atheist.That is what religion
> (theism) label you and you go along with it like a clueless sheep.
> Just read my post a few days ago where I said that as much I support
> atheists,I'm not an atheist.I'm a translator.I translate religion into
> English.
crazy alec:
I appreciate your point of view. I would tentatively agree that all TV
evangelists, most "tent-circuit" evangelists and many other "pushers" of
religion (including Ashcroft and the bush administration) are con-artists
or wannabe fascists using their so-called "morality" as a wedge. I'd have
to pick Pastor Bob as the most entertaining, though locally in the SF Bay
Area, Dr Gene Scott was always a treat to watch until the IRS shut him
down.
But I know from personal experience that most of the people who claim to
believe, do in fact believe. So effectively, theism is real to them.
Your "in-your-face" approach is mildly amusing to those of us with a sense
of humor, but in the long run you're probably pissing off more people than
you're convincing. Anyway, free-country and all, so rock on.
andy
esnp...@bitusmeus.com
> (Andrew Gray <gra...@pacbell.net>):
>
>>But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
>>want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
>>you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
>
> You're an atheist. Deal with it. Stop the feel-good-rub-my-balls
> crap.
Ummm... Normally I would just
aww fuck it
<plonk>
Jeremy Martin
Oh, my. Snip the part that says why you're an idiot.
--
Jeremy Martin
"MENTAL GIANT kollegge graduate with a PHD in STUPID!"
"You mean there is no such thing as a shoulder mounted railgun?
Now what am I supposed to do with all these depleted uranium
shards?"
- xd, SA Forums
esnp...@bitusmeus.com
[snip to a specific issue]
>>Did you think communism was a good idea? My guess, no
>
> In theory? Yes. Communism is based on compassion, capitalism on greed. You
> can guess why outside of theory capitalism works...
Read Marx & Engels. Compassion didn't have much to do with their Manifesto.
A lot of killing, and deliberate brutal oppression and suppression of
opposing views did.
Taken completely out of context, it's possible to say that Communism is
based on everyone being treated as equals. In context, it is mostly based
on the ultimate "PC" lie -- that it is a correctible injustice that some
people have talent and drive to succeed, while others don't.
(pls don't assume that I'm defending greed for greed's sake, just pointing
out that communism as envisioned by Marx is no less evil.)
andy
dummie
> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a poignant
> moment for me.
>
> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
>
> by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
Hiya Andy. :)
> To put it another way: I don't believe in leprechauns. Does that make me
> an afaerist? I don't deliberately kick hard things when I have no shoes
> on. Does that make me an 'astubber'? Should I go through life explaining
> to people "I don't stub, sorry"?
> <snippy>
>
> andy
Interesting idea, but methinks labels we use are only given through
the degree to which they are useful or relevant in life. It turns out
atheist is.
The Plasmatron
> The Plasmatron wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:43 GMT Andrew Gray <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> [snippage to the two most relevant points]
>>> So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power
>>> to
>>> something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
>>> specific category of absurdists".
>>
>> The difference is that the religious tend to do all in their power to
>> shove their delusions down everyone else's throats, while most other
>> absurdists don't.
> Don't get me wrong -- I'm not about to sit idly by and let a bunch of
> ninnies try to take over the government unopposed. In a limited context of
> fighting against the absurdists' attempts to oppress me, then referring to
> myself with a label like "atheist" is appropriate -- it helps to define my
> position. It just doesn't define ME.
It is never the less what you are. Just as you are an afaerist, and
an adragonist, and probably an aunicornist too. The only way to not be an
atheist is to believe in a god. You may choose not to use the label under
other circumstances, but unless you've found yourself a deity you're still
an atheist even if you choose not to mention it.
>>> But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
>>> want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
>>> you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
>>
>> Well, as a deist I can do that bit: God is that entity which created
>> the universe. Now you can give a clear "No", indicating that you do not
>> believe that some entity existed prior to the universe that created it.
> That's not really a significant definition. How big is it? What does it
> smell like? Where can it be found? What physical properties does it
> possess? How, and more importantly, why did it create the universe? How
> much energy does it consume -- i.e. how does it fit into the whole entropy
> equation of the universe?
> What created it, or how (and why) did it come into being?
How the fuck would I know? I consider myself lucky that I found as
much evidence as I did, and all it indicated is that the universe is
a created thing. That's it for my knowledge, and the evidence is not
exactly easy, and certainly not worth it, to show anyone else, so I
really don't expect anyone else to believe in it.
Look, my example was supposed to be pretty damned clear. Do you
believe there was an entity that existed prior to the universe that
created the universe. Any answer other than "Yes" qualifies you as an
atheist. If you find the proposition to be meaningless then you can't
believe in it, and lack of belief is the sole qualification.
> Unless it can be understood -- or felt, or seen, etc. -- in some repeatable
> and demonstrable way, then its existence remains an arbitrary (and
> therefore absurd) proposition. Arbitrary propositions cannot be evaluated
> as either true or false.
Which still makes you an atheist to my god. You do not hold a
positive belief that my god exists, and that's all it takes. Atheism is
nothing more than lacking theism. As long as you fail to believe in a god
you are an atheist. It doesn't matter if you are undecided or what. As
long as there is no god for which you have a positive belief that it does
exist you are an atheist. The only way to not be an atheist is to be a
theist. There is no middle ground.
All who are not theists are by definition atheists, so all who are not
atheists *must* be theists.
The FAQ is very clear on this matter. Give it a re-read some time.
You may have a different personal definition, but for the purposes of this
discourse community the definition in the FAQ is final.
Is this sane? Did a theist just lecture an atheist on the definition
of atheist, and refer him to the FAQ - in alt.atheism? Where the fuck am
I? The mirror universe from Star Trek?
Roy Sinnamond
<plasm...@sickof.spam> wrote:
[snipped good explanation of defining atheism/theism]
> Is this sane? Did a theist just lecture an atheist on the definition
> of atheist, and refer him to the FAQ - in alt.atheism? Where the fuck am
> I? The mirror universe from Star Trek?
Do you have a little goatee?
--
Roy Sinnamond
aa #1798 EAC Minister of Cognitive Dissonance
roysinnamond at mac dot com
"That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"
Crazyalec
> (pls don't assume that I'm defending greed for greed's sake, just pointing
> out that communism as envisioned by Marx is no less evil.)
>
> andy
++First of all,there is no such thing as a communism.Its a man made idea.A
fiction novel.
Bunch of con artists used this idea (belief) to justify revolution,which
leads to power and money control.
Second,some countries called it socialism,but it was another lie.
In reality it was a totalitarism.Just another form of controlling masses and
money by exploiting unprovable ideas.
Crazyalec
> of humor, but in the long run you're probably pissing off more people than
> you're convincing. Anyway, free-country and all, so rock on.
>
> andy
++Let me clarify a few things.I'm not talking about believers and their
thoughts.They are loyal customers for a business.Loyalty doesn't mean to
believe in something,it means support ,like money and vote for the 'right'
candidate.
I'm talking about religion.
People you mentioned didn't create that business.Their job is to
protect,advertise and keep the business going.Good job...fat paycheck.When
they are gone,somebody else will be doing it.
People come and go,but the business stays.
My point is very simple.
In order to understand religion,you have to look from a Business Point of
View.
What would you do to protect,advertise and keep the business going?
This includes labeling people 'atheist'.Creating an enemy to justify
existance,money and wars.
http://tinyurl.com/33tf
P.S.I'm looking for people with fluent English,who understand my ideas and
can help me to phrase 'em in proper way.
Crazyalec
> > Remember that atheist is an
> > historical category invented by theists to describe their opponents.
++Exactly!
But what if there is no theism?
What if theism is just a con game,created to justify money and power
control?
Trust me,its not my idea or belief.
I only deal with a realty.
In reality religions around the world collect billions and get into power
using believers as customers.
No customers....no billions of dollars in revenue.Simple
So in order for a religion to function,they need constant flow of believers.
If I'm wrong,prove it to me,but don't post the same lame replies about
broken record.
stoney
<plasm...@sickof.spam>, Message ID:
<at3nnr$43k$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
>On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:24:58 +0000 esnp...@bitusmeus.com wrote:
>> The Plasmatron wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:43 GMT Andrew Gray <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
(snip)
> Which still makes you an atheist to my god. You do not hold a
>positive belief that my god exists, and that's all it takes. Atheism is
>nothing more than lacking theism. As long as you fail to believe in a god
>you are an atheist. It doesn't matter if you are undecided or what. As
>long as there is no god for which you have a positive belief that it does
>exist you are an atheist. The only way to not be an atheist is to be a
>theist. There is no middle ground.
> All who are not theists are by definition atheists, so all who are not
>atheists *must* be theists.
> The FAQ is very clear on this matter. Give it a re-read some time.
>You may have a different personal definition, but for the purposes of this
>discourse community the definition in the FAQ is final.
>
> Is this sane? Did a theist just lecture an atheist on the definition
>of atheist, and refer him to the FAQ - in alt.atheism? Where the fuck am
>I? The mirror universe from Star Trek?
Take him to the agony booth.... :))
The Plasmatron
> In article <at3nnr$43k$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu>, The Plasmatron
> <plasm...@sickof.spam> wrote:
> [snipped good explanation of defining atheism/theism]
>> Is this sane? Did a theist just lecture an atheist on the definition
>> of atheist, and refer him to the FAQ - in alt.atheism? Where the fuck am
>> I? The mirror universe from Star Trek?
> Do you have a little goatee?
Uh, well, yes actually. My new job allows facial hair, so I grew it
as a reminder that I am no longer a slave to fast food. Why? <innocent
look>
Jeremy Martin
>On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 23:43:22 -0500 Roy Sinnamond <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>> In article <at3nnr$43k$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu>, The Plasmatron
>> <plasm...@sickof.spam> wrote:
>
>> [snipped good explanation of defining atheism/theism]
>
>>> Is this sane? Did a theist just lecture an atheist on the definition
>>> of atheist, and refer him to the FAQ - in alt.atheism? Where the fuck am
>>> I? The mirror universe from Star Trek?
>
>> Do you have a little goatee?
>
> Uh, well, yes actually. My new job allows facial hair, so I grew it
>as a reminder that I am no longer a slave to fast food. Why? <innocent
>look>
I have a little one, too!
http://www.cox-internet.com/dethstryk/mean.jpg
--
Jeremy Martin
np: DTBeacon1-01-GlassPrison
"It's either that or some disembodied electroplasm. I don't
believe in the supernatural."
- Pastor Frank, alt.atheism (08.31.2001)
The Plasmatron
> On 10 Dec 2002 03:40:43 GMT, The Plasmatron
> <plasm...@sickof.spam>, Message ID:
> <at3nnr$43k$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
>>On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:24:58 +0000 esnp...@bitusmeus.com wrote:
>>> The Plasmatron wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:43 GMT Andrew Gray <gra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> (snip)
>> Which still makes you an atheist to my god. You do not hold a
>>positive belief that my god exists, and that's all it takes. Atheism is
>>nothing more than lacking theism. As long as you fail to believe in a god
>>you are an atheist. It doesn't matter if you are undecided or what. As
>>long as there is no god for which you have a positive belief that it does
>>exist you are an atheist. The only way to not be an atheist is to be a
>>theist. There is no middle ground.
>> All who are not theists are by definition atheists, so all who are not
>>atheists *must* be theists.
>> The FAQ is very clear on this matter. Give it a re-read some time.
>>You may have a different personal definition, but for the purposes of this
>>discourse community the definition in the FAQ is final.
>>
>> Is this sane? Did a theist just lecture an atheist on the definition
>>of atheist, and refer him to the FAQ - in alt.atheism? Where the fuck am
>>I? The mirror universe from Star Trek?
> Take him to the agony booth.... :))
But the Federation doesn't have... <looks around> Uh, yea. Agony
booth. Yes sir. Right away sir! Long live the empire! <hauls prisoner
off>
maky m.
> ("Herb Martin" <He...@LearnQuick.Com>):
>
> >> you know better than mess with martin, jeremy martin that is. dumbest
> >> atheist around these here neck of the woods...
> >
> >Oh....
> >
> >
> ><grin>
>
> Oh, fuck you both. As for what you wrote..
>
> >It's about belief, so he is whatever he BELIEVES
> >himself to be.
>
> I don't give a flying fuck what you believe.
i bet you believe that statement. lol.
The Ghost In The Machine
<esnp...@bitusmeus.com>
wrote
on Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:28:44 +0000
<at35g...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
Well, OK, apart from the fact that he's Andy, what *was* the point?
Perhaps we need a more specific term, bearing in mind that if we
all stood up and said "I'm ________" the theists, by virtue of
their collective hysteria, would eat us for lunch, from a
rhetorical standpoint, gobbling us up like Martian fighting
machines picking up men in an H. G. Wells novel, or an
amoeba surrounding and ingesting food particles.
Even the Supreme Court classified us as a religion -- mostly
just for its convenience, but I'd have to find the specific
decision. So we're grouped anyway, if only because we're
besieged on all sides.
Admittedly, it's not clear I can personally keep track of 6.2
billion individuals. I'm not sure any one mind can, although
in theory it's possible since there are more neurons in the
human brain than individuals on the planet. However, I don't
know how much information a neuron stores -- and I have my
doubts that a neuron in isolation stores anything at all;
I suspect it's the tangled topology that is that thing
we call memory. However, I'm not a neurologist.
But to give some perspective: one could, with a 120
megabyte disk, store 20 bytes of information per individual
on this planet. That's barely enough for the person's
given birthname -- if that (if one's familiar with India
one knows the names can get very long; I believe the same
is true of some Mexican and/or Aztec cultures as well).
Buy three of those and one might be able to throw in the
address as well (the date of birth is a timestamp, so can
be represented in 8 bytes at the very most) . Buy four or
five more and one could even add in some ancillary data,
such as schools attended -- and religious beliefs.
If one allocates 1 second per individual, 24/7/365, it would
take 180 years to gather that information by oneself. Granted,
a lot of those individuals are children so one could allocate
that extra second to the mother or father instead. If Mom &
Dad had 15 children one could allocate a full quarter-minute
and maybe Mom & Dad might even have a printed sheet handy.
Assuming they have printers, or even ink and paper.
If one assumes a slightly more normal 40-hour week, 50-week year
(normal for the U.S., anyway; Europeans like 1 1/2-months of
vacation contrasted with our paltry 2 weeks), that's 833 years.
So being Andy is fine -- for Andy. I'm not entirely sure if
that works for everybody...but then, not everyone would want
to be Andy. :-) But there is a vaster "collective mind" out
there that proclaims it's for Jesus "Godboy-Bleeding-On-A-Cross"
Christ. (No, I'm not pulling an FDR [*] on you, although one could
think of it that way; "I believe in God" is a convenient crutch
and allows an individual to belong to this mental meme. In
a way, memes are like genes; a brain is the meme's way of
expressing itself... :-) )
I'm not entirely sure how to deal with this issue apart from the
obvious "I'm ______" yet. But there's a difference between
joining a group and being forced to kowtow to it.
[*] theist poster long ago claiming a Mind (not mind) existed.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
stoney
<plasm...@sickof.spam>, Message ID:
<at6n8v$o16$4...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
The prisoner gets wrists chained to stantions and Yeoman Rand, and
Uhura do a dance of the seven veils........
AuntieLib
> > > You're an atheist. Deal with it. Stop the feel-good-rub-my-balls
> > > crap.
> >
> > himself to be.
> >
>
> you know better than mess with martin, jeremy martin that is. dumbest
> atheist around these here neck of the woods...
At least he knows how to use capital letters, unlike *some* people I could name...
elizabeth
aa#2098
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nanny-In-Residence
EAC Youth Division
(99% of the people in this world are fools, and
the rest of us are in great danger of contagion.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AuntieLib
> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a poignant
> moment for me.
>
> myself that for years -- since my 20's. But it's not true.
If you don't believe in gods, it *is* true.
While I agree with the idea (as I see it) behind your post, I think
you are confusing "What I am" with "All that I am" with regards to the
label "atheist."
You are male (I am assuming.) Are you a Man and nothing more than a
Man? No. While if you are male you are obviously a Man, that is not
*all* you are. So saying "I am not a Man, I am Andy" is a rather
contradictory statement and doesn't really go very far towards letting
others know you in any meaningful way. Labels only define little bits
of who we are and to reject a label, such as "atheist," because it
doesn't define the totality of You is confusing.
I am a woman. I am a feminist. I am an aunt. I am a sister. I am a
daughter. I am an atheist. I am a night-person. I am an accountant.
I am a chocoholic. I am an anglophile. All of those labels describe
little bits of who I am, but none are entirely descriptive of Me. I
won't deny the validity of any of those descriptions because none is
all-inclusive.
> I say this now because I have realized that I am defined by what I *am*, not
> by what I'm not. I know what I am. I'm Andy.
And what is "Andy" in meaningful, human terms?
> To put it another way: I don't believe in leprechauns. Does that make me
> an afaerist? I don't deliberately kick hard things when I have no shoes
> on. Does that make me an 'astubber'? Should I go through life explaining
> to people "I don't stub, sorry"?
Has anyone ever asked you if you stub? If they haven't, it isn't an
issue. Has anyone ever asked you if you believe in God? If they
have, it is an issue.
> So what I've come to realize is that it's pointless to give so much power to
> something that's patently absurd. To label myself as "not belonging to a
> specific category of absurdists".
You *have* to if those absurdists are trying to give their absurdities
the validity of law. If some group of toe stubbers tried to legally
force every member of their community to stub their toes before public
meetings, you'd *have* to declare yourself an "astubber" or risk a
sore, bloody toe.
> How much noise and fury has been spent in a.a over the past 17-or-so years
> about what the word atheist means? Or that we can't be moral because
> we're atheists. Or that "If you're an atheist, then you must (dis)believe
> in ..."
If someone wants to deny my rights as a citizen of my country because
they have wrongfully defined my beliefs and/or moral values, you can
damn well bet that those seventeen years were not wasted if my rights
were protected as a consequence.
> But I'm not an atheist. I'm Andy. Ask me and I'll tell you anything you
> want to know about me. Ask me if I believe in God, and I'll say "Until
> you can define what 'God' is, the question is arbitrary and meaningless."
Then you are an atheist, as well as a man, as well as a human being,
as well as Andy, as well as... whatever you describe yourself as.
It's just that none of those terms is describes ALL that you are. And
no one would expect them to.
Andrew Gray
OK I misunderstood you. You actually are like the other people who read my
post and missed the point (in your case, it appears, deliberately). My
apologies.
I actually thought you had something to say that wasn't trivial.
--
andy gray -- remove 'spam' from asnpdaym to reply.
"If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have one dollar"
------------------ Squidward
The Plasmatron
> (The Plasmatron <plasm...@sickof.spam>):
>>On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 23:43:22 -0500 Roy Sinnamond <s...@my.sig> wrote:
>>> In article <at3nnr$43k$1...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu>, The Plasmatron
>>> <plasm...@sickof.spam> wrote:
>>
>>> [snipped good explanation of defining atheism/theism]
>>
>>>> Is this sane? Did a theist just lecture an atheist on the definition
>>>> of atheist, and refer him to the FAQ - in alt.atheism? Where the fuck am
>>>> I? The mirror universe from Star Trek?
>>
>>> Do you have a little goatee?
>>
>> Uh, well, yes actually. My new job allows facial hair, so I grew it
>>as a reminder that I am no longer a slave to fast food. Why? <innocent
>>look>
> I have a little one, too!
> http://www.cox-internet.com/dethstryk/mean.jpg
Ok, now I'm going to have to remember to unpack my scanner one of
these days and show off mine :)>
The Plasmatron
<drooling> I think I can get used to this universe :)
The Plasmatron
> The Plasmatron wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:24:58 +0000 esnp...@bitusmeus.com wrote:
>> All who are not theists are by definition atheists, so all who are not
>> atheists *must* be theists.
>> The FAQ is very clear on this matter. Give it a re-read some time.
>> You may have a different personal definition, but for the purposes of this
>> discourse community the definition in the FAQ is final.
> OK I misunderstood you. You actually are like the other people who read my
> post and missed the point (in your case, it appears, deliberately). My
> apologies.
> I actually thought you had something to say that wasn't trivial.
It's not trivial. The point is that you can fail to call yourself an
atheist, but nothing short of aquiring a god will make you "not an
atheist" by simple definition of the words. If you have trouble with the
way the english language works, tough shit.
I am *not* saying that you have to call yourself one, or even pay any
notice to the label. All I am saying is you can not honestly say you are
"not an atheist" until you aquire a god. Complaining that the word "god"
isn't even satisfactorily defined is no excuse, unless you believe in
ill-defined things for some odd reason.
Andrew Gray
(Apologies for the tone of my last remark)
I have two major reasons for rejecting the simple "definitionist" approach.
Mainly, it's because English is a living language, and words are frequently
used to mean more than what one finds in the dictionary. "Atheist" is such
a word. Not to be overly argumentative, but THAT is how English works,
tough shit.
I'm not a moral relativist, I'm not a bitter ex-christian, I'm not
hopelessly amoral, etc. To identify myself as "atheist" often puts me in
the position of having to explain what I'm not, instead of having people
get to know what I am.
Second, even atheists can't agree on which dictionary definition to use. To
you, theist, it may seem a simple matter. But if you read the FAQ :)
you'll see that there are at least two camps, who are often vehemently
opposed.
Andrew Gray
> In alt.atheism, esnp...@bitusmeus.com
> <esnp...@bitusmeus.com>
> wrote
> on Mon, 09 Dec 2002 22:28:44 +0000
> <at35g...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.atheism, Andrew Gray
>>> <gra...@pacbell.net>
>>> wrote
>>> on Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:43 GMT
>>> <LMyI9.157727$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>:
>>>>
>>>> Forgive (or ignore) me if this sounds trivial to some, but it was a
>>>> poignant moment for me.
>>>
>>> [rest snipped]
>>>
>>> If you're not a theist, you're an atheist, by definition.
>>> The prefix 'a-' or 'an-' means 'no' or 'not'.
>>
>> Congratulations for being the first to point out the obvious while
>> completely missing the point.
>
> Well, OK, apart from the fact that he's Andy, what *was* the point?
Actually, he's ME, posting from another account :)
Point: To self-identify myself as "atheist" is to allow myself to be
defined by people who believe arbitrary fairy-tales, who are threatened by
the fact that their fairy tale isn't as "obvious" as they want to believe
it is.
> Perhaps we need a more specific term, bearing in mind that if we
> all stood up and said "I'm ________" the theists, by virtue of
> their collective hysteria, would eat us for lunch,
Y'see here... you've created an "us" and stuffed me in it. Are we an "us"?
You are making an assumption that you and I have common interest in what
theists think or say. This is part of the tacked-on baggage that "atheist"
has taken on that I emphatically reject*
> Even the Supreme Court classified us as a religion -- mostly
> just for its convenience, but I'd have to find the specific
> decision. So we're grouped anyway, if only because we're
> besieged on all sides.
Again illustrative of what bugs me. The problem is that the believers in
certain fairy tales have convinced the government to treat them
differently, allow their churches to operate tax free, etc. It's still a
pathological response to absurdity.
[* disclaimer: yes, I see an interest in resisting theocracy, maintaining
the separation of church and state, it's the *assumption* of same that I
question]
Andrew Gray
> I'm talking about religion.
> People you mentioned didn't create that business.Their job is to
> protect,advertise and keep the business going.Good job...fat paycheck.When
> they are gone,somebody else will be doing it.
> People come and go,but the business stays.
>
> My point is very simple.
> In order to understand religion,you have to look from a Business Point of
> View.
> What would you do to protect,advertise and keep the business going?
Take a dose of your own advice and look at it like a real business. The
demand creates the market. In this case, anyway, the demand is older than
any of the current suppliers, and will persist even if you win whatever
crusade you appear to be on.
Crazyalec
> Take a dose of your own advice and look at it like a real business. The
> demand creates the market.
++How is it different from a con game?Con artist creates a demand,then push
a product.
In this case, anyway, the demand is older than
> any of the current suppliers
++So what.How does it change the fact that religion is (an old) business?
, and will persist even if you win whatever
> crusade you appear to be on.
++HAHAHA
Tell it to Newdow.He's the one on a crusade to remove religious symbols from
public square.Are you saying he's a loser?
>
>
Crazyalec Translator #1
http://tinyurl.com/33tf
Crazyalec
> believe in a god, but I am not a member of any religion. I call myself a
> deist because I fit their definition, just like I used to call myself an
> atheist when I did not believe in any gods. There is no central
> organization of deists any more than for atheists. There are no people
> who benifit financially from me being a deist, except maybe the ACLU when
> I get out of debt, but I was planning to give money to them back when I
> was an atheist too. So, what do you have to say about that?
++You just gave a description how religion (spirituality) should be.A
personal belief.Keep it for yourself,organize as a hobby,just like any
other interests out there.
But stay away from government,politics and justice system.Stop
exploiting a belief to justify money and power.
The Ghost In The Machine
<asnp...@bitusmeus.com>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:34:16 GMT
<sdVJ9.328796$WL3.106065@rwcrnsc54>:
Uh...and the arbitrary fairy-tale believed by those who think they
are "atheists" is...what?
That we lack belief in something?
That we are objective?
That we are better than theists?
Please clarify.
>
>> Perhaps we need a more specific term, bearing in mind that if we
>> all stood up and said "I'm ________" the theists, by virtue of
>> their collective hysteria, would eat us for lunch,
>
> Y'see here... you've created an "us" and stuffed me in it.
> Are we an "us"? You are making an assumption that you and I
> have common interest in what theists think or say. This is
> part of the tacked-on baggage that "atheist"
> has taken on that I emphatically reject*
One of the dangers of being an "anti-group" (theists being the
"pro-group", in a weird sort of way), I suspect. It's a problem.
Consider the metaphor of a filter tank filtering, say, sea
water into water. Input is everything. Output 1 is water.
What is Output 2? Um...
So I see your point, admittedly. Perhaps we should in
fact abandon the term "atheist" entirely, and merely
identify ourselves. After all, atheists are evil,
atheists identify themselves with Satan, atheists have
little goatees, atheists love to play with pentagrams,
black candles, and have you noticed the black cats are
all missing? Also, atheists are against God. Gosh,
those atheists are mean, aren't they? :-)
It's very hard to say that about a generic class of Andy's.
Or anyone else, for that matter.
With current computer equipment it is entirely possible
to track a good portion of the individuals. With future
equipment we may be able to do even a better job.
>
>> Even the Supreme Court classified us as a religion -- mostly
>> just for its convenience, but I'd have to find the specific
>> decision. So we're grouped anyway, if only because we're
>> besieged on all sides.
>
> Again illustrative of what bugs me. The problem is that the believers in
> certain fairy tales have convinced the government to treat them
> differently, allow their churches to operate tax free, etc. It's still a
> pathological response to absurdity.
If one squints a bit, the idea that the Church should not pay
property taxes makes a certain twisted form of sense. Apparently
the covenant here is that "we don't interfere in your business
as long as you don't interfere in ours" -- which makes some
sense but apparently the current incarnations of the Church
seem to be quite adept at interfering in political affairs.
So perhaps we can tax them now.... :-)
Of course, I'm still not sure the "single identification"
idea is all that good an idea yet. But "terrorist cells"
are very good at being diffuse and spread out; there's
at most a group of six or thereabouts in any one cell,
and they're almost impossible to find.
And they occasionally do work, with deadly results.
Those who have identified themselves and who have the
attribute of not being within the set commonly described
as "deity-worshippers" could very well employ a similar
tactic, ugly as it might appear in the previous context,
to confuse the theists.
(For an amusing take on all this, check out the latter
part of "The Thirteenth voyage" in Stanislaw Lem's
_Star Diaries_. I'm assuming you're proposing the
antithesis of "Free Panta" here. :-) )
>
> [* disclaimer: yes, I see an interest in resisting theocracy, maintaining
> the separation of church and state, it's the *assumption* of same that I
> question]
Effective resistance of the theocracy cannot even begin
to commence without identification, as we'd simply be
replacing one set of beliefs with another set of beliefs
-- namely, those beliefs of the class of atheists who
have the dominant class of beliefs. (Currently, these
are the more or less scientific types, but who knows?
We could have the Cult of the IPU tomorrow, and the
entire problem would recur. Or maybe Queen Maeve would
surface next Thursday (or is it Tuesday?) and wipe us all
out except her fervent believers. Next week will be the
followers of the One True Pizza -- they're a little weird.
The week after? Good question.)
There is admittedly the minor problem that, once an
individual is fully identified, I'm not entirely sure
if such things as judges, juries, and such would make as
much sense. Presumably, everyone would have the ability
to assemble a relevant dossier from publically-available
-- and, more importantly, complete and verified --
information. Of course one would also have to verify
and assimilate this information on other individuals.
And one can forget about privacy. (Not that privacy is
currently possible in large part anyway. Buy a house?
You're on the list. Have a car? You're on the list.
Paid for that $5 shampoo bottle using a credit card?
You're on the list. And that list can be bought and sold.)
Considering the memes currently floating about -- "Elvis
lives!" "UFOs are among us" "Kennedy was assassinated
by someone on the grassy knoll" "There is a perpetual
motion machine using Brown's Gas; there's a conspiracy
of science against it" [*] "Cold fusion works" "You too
can have a thinner waistline just by popping pills" --
I'm wondering about the accuracy point. (And these are
the milder ones; I won't go into the ethnic stereotypes.)
There is also the problem of money. Money is more or less
an interchangeable token; if Individual A wants a product
service that Individual B can provide, but Individual B
does not want a product service Individual A can provide,
money is one method out of this dilemma, but money is *not*
identifiable -- one $1 bill is very much like another, be
it new and shiny or old and wrinkled and near the end of
its useful life. Or one can chop up the tokens and pay
that $1 debt using 2 quarters, 3 dimes, 3 nickles, and
5 pennies. But what does it all mean? A penny might be
worth at most 0.2 cents or so of copper and zinc were it
melted down and sold on the open market; the other coins
are of similar worth. In a sense we're being cheated.
In fact, money may not even be meaningful. Current money
in particular has no standard; money of old was based
on metallic gold (which is admittedly a bad idea anyway,
nowadays; a gold standard was too inflexible to prevent
the Great Depression). At best, we trust the government
-- and considering its history so far, I'd say that trust
has not paid very well. :-) Especially with the current
occupant -- and if claims are accurate, the affable prior
occupant as well, whose wife is now a Senator.
A deadly possibility: taking a batch of money and soaking
it in something noxious, or powdering it with, say,
antrax spores. Some traces of cocaine, for instance, are
known to have been detected on bills (I'd have to find the
specific story now), and money handlers are well aware to
wash their hands frequently. Some wear latex gloves.
I sure hope al Qaeda isn't reading my posts... :-)
Or one can put one's trust in another vaguely communistic
enterprise: companies. Yes, yes, I know, companies are
the epitome of capitalism -- but only when one is *outside*
the company, wheeling and dealing with other companies
(or, more likely, company reps), not when one is inside.
Inside, it's all politics, take what you need, and work
on whatever your boss tells you (if you're lucky you get
some say in the matter and he takes it under advisement
or something). Nobody worries about how much that office
pen costs, except perhaps those in Finance who have to
compute the approximate replacement costs therefor in next
year's budget for multiple departments. (And they *do*
worry about such things.)
Apparently what you're proposing could be described as
a nation of independent contractors. Not a bad idea,
actually -- although I'm going to have to think through
some more issues -- in particular, the grouping of these
contractors for larger endeavors such as, say, the manned
moon shot, or even a company. There'd be no such thing as
a company rep, really; he'd be fully identified (and known
to work for the company) but the astute buyer would check
out each and every other individual of the enterprise as
well, looking for potential trouble spots.
And then there's the lookup/fraud problem. I'm not
entirely sure how to tackle that one yet; "can I have a
sample of your DNA?" sounds so gauche. :-) Of course
the fact that we'd have a lack of stereotypes might
help somewhat (one can't hide as effectively as, say,
a Catholic priest if there are no Catholic priests).
Assuming we can get that far -- and we're not even close
thereto, judging from some of the hate screeds some of
the inDUHviduals post here from time to time.
[*] Brown's Gas is a crude mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.
And yes, there is such an alleged machine, although I doubt
its motion is perpetual, as it takes energy to disassociate
water into hydrogen and oxygen -- the same amount of
energy one can theoretically get from recombining them.
There's no way to work around this problem, although one
might use sunlight for the input energy.
AuntieLib
>
> (Apologies for the tone of my last remark)
>
> I have two major reasons for rejecting the simple "definitionist" approach.
>
> Mainly, it's because English is a living language, and words are frequently
> used to mean more than what one finds in the dictionary. "Atheist" is such
> a word. Not to be overly argumentative, but THAT is how English works,
> tough shit.
But isn't the problem people have with the definition of a word
*their* problem, and not yours? And that is assuming that you can
control what others think, anyway. Some people might have a real
problem with the word "Andy." I call myself a feminist and that word
*really* gets some people riled. They have all kinds of preconceived
notions about what a "feminist" is or thinks or should look like or
acts. I figure that's *their* problem if they want to stereotype me.
*I* know what it means to me to be a feminist.
> I'm not a moral relativist, I'm not a bitter ex-christian, I'm not
> hopelessly amoral, etc. To identify myself as "atheist" often puts me in
> the position of having to explain what I'm not, instead of having people
> get to know what I am.
But won't you find the same problem if you just define yourself as
"Andy"? You will eventually have to expand on that, and explaining
what we are *not* is part and parcel of explaining what we *are* to
strangers. If religion is relevant to some discussion where you might
use the term "atheist," the fact that "Andy" doesn't believe in
someone else's idea of god is going to define you, whether you like it
or not. Their preconceived notions (whatever they are) will kick in,
"Andy" will become an "atheist" and you'll end up the same place you
would have if you'd just started out by saying "Hi. I'm Andy and I'm
also an atheist" rather than "Hi. I'm Andy. What? Oh, no. I don't
believe in your god."
> Second, even atheists can't agree on which dictionary definition to use. To
> you, theist, it may seem a simple matter. But if you read the FAQ :)
> you'll see that there are at least two camps, who are often vehemently
> opposed.
Opposed as to definition but not opposed as to what we believe or
don't believe. (And the opposition is academic, really. Most of the
people in a.a. like to argue for the pure pleasure of arguing. It
doesn't mean anything.)
That's my nickel's worth, anyway. (Thanks, by the way, for the
thought-provoking thread. It has been quite interesting to think
about what it is that defines Me, as opposed to labels which merely
describe me.)
stoney
<plasm...@sickof.spam>, Message ID:
<at9354$hmq$9...@coward.ks.cc.utah.edu> wrote in alt.atheism;
heheheheh...../me hears "Punish me..oh pleaaassseee punish me"......
Herb Martin
name...
So you have some belief about the orthodox
use of capitals and know there is no more
effective manner, correct?
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
maky m.
> maky m. wrote:
> > > > You're an atheist. Deal with it. Stop the feel-good-rub-my-balls
> > > > crap.
> > >
> > > It's about belief, so he is whatever he BELIEVES
> > > himself to be.
> > >
> > > Deal with it -- and leave your balls out of it.
> >
> > you know better than mess with martin, jeremy martin that is. dumbest
> > atheist around these here neck of the woods...
>
> At least he knows how to use capital letters, unlike *some* people I
> could name...
well. it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that jeremy
martin does NOT know how to use his brains.
The Plasmatron
<evil grin>
The Plasmatron
When you ignore the definition because "words are frequently used to
mean more than what one finds in the dictionary" then there really isn't
anything you can do to escape assumptions that people will make of you.
Anyway, it is not the word that is the problem. It is the fact that
christers think that if you don't believe in thier god you must be an evil
SOB.
> I'm not a moral relativist, I'm not a bitter ex-christian, I'm not
Them's the breaks. I, a deist, am both of those things.
> hopelessly amoral, etc. To identify myself as "atheist" often puts me in
> the position of having to explain what I'm not, instead of having people
> get to know what I am.
You're going to get that shit no matter how you explain that you have
no god or gods. Anyway apparently you missed the bit where I tried to
make it blindingly obvious that "I am *not* saying that you have to call
yourself one, or even pay any notice to the label", since you are still
bitching about what happens when you identify yourself as an atheist. If
you don't like what happens then don't do it, but it doesn't change the
fact that until you aquire at least one deity it is what you are.
> Second, even atheists can't agree on which dictionary definition to use. To
> you, theist, it may seem a simple matter. But if you read the FAQ :)
> you'll see that there are at least two camps, who are often vehemently
> opposed.
What, you mean the strong and weak atheists? I guess this is what I
get for not re-reading the faq in a good year or so. Now I'll have to see
what changes have been posted...
Ok, where exactly in the FAQ are you finding 2 camps other than the
Strong and Weak variants, which both agree on the base definition anyway,
with the Strong merely taking the strong philosophical stance of believing
no gods exist, rather than the weak philosophical stance of failing to
believe any gods do exist? So far that's all I can find, and the relavent
bits haven't changed in any important particulars I could find since the
last time I read it.
Oh, by the way, it's not because I'm a theist that it seems a simple
matter. I was an atheist for a long time on this group, and it seems
simple because of how often I've pointed silly theists to the FAQ
defintion to get them to shut up about their foolish idea that all
atheists have a positive belief in the non-existence of gods.
The Plasmatron
Sorry the reply took so long, just showed up on the server marked
December 12th :P
At any rate the majority of deists desperately want all religious crap
out of our government. The wall of seperation between church and state
was erected for a reason, and that reason is that no nation ever kept its
freedom for long once religion got a toe-hold in the government. Just
look at the freedoms we've lost here in the USA since that godbot got
appointed president.
Here is a good example of what deists think of organized religion:
http://www.deism.com/tax_religions.htm
An excerpt I think you'll appreciate:
"SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT! As you read the below article keep this fact in
mind. According to the tax appraiser's office for Pinellas County, Florida
the dollar amount of exempt real estate held by religions in Pinellas
county alone is:
$583,581,970.00!!!
That half a billion dollars plus could be added to the tax base and used
to help the uninsured that the faith-healers can't heal, or to help clean
up the environment, for education, etc., etc., etc. Instead it goes to
promote superstition."
Think of deists as OpenBSD to Judaism's MacOS, Christianity's Windows
NT, Islam's Windows 98, and Ba'hai's Windows XP ;)