Athiest - definition thereof
Andrew Mulcahy
many years a professor of philosophy at U Calgary.
Andy.
"Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central
metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God
or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim
that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are
so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do
not succeed in making a coherent factual claim.
The claims, in an important sense, do not make sense, and, while
believers are under the illusion that there is something intelligible
to be believed in, in reality there is not. These seemingly grand
cosmological claims are in reality best understood as myths or
ideological claims reflecting a confused understanding of their
utterers' situation.
Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that
it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate
characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to
be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the
following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is
being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects
belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a
God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin,
Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept
of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory,
incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern
or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God
because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an
atheistic substance--e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or
"God" is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.
This atheism is a much more complex notion, as are its various
reflective rejections. It is clear from what has been said about the
concept of God in developed forms of Judeo-Christianity that the more
crucial form of atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is
false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God
because the concept of God is said not to make sense--to be in some
important way incoherent or unintelligible."
Cheers
#################################################
" Genetic exuberance - - the zest for life that
makes this planet dance in the sun."
Andy Mulcahy
ernobe
"Andrew Mulcahy" <m...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:2n3cctg5k34ptm6c8...@4ax.com...
or unintelligible requires that we first define that concept as far as
intelligibility or coherence allows. Now humanity is conscious, beyond its
own rational powers, of having been created along with objects that have not
been the result of its own rational constructs. Religions attempt to
explain this concept as far as it is humanly possible. Atheism on the other
hand implies that we reject all concepts that appear to us incoherent or
unintelligible, but then we would not have an intelligence superior to that
of a cow. Nay, the cows intelligence would then be superior, as it has no
contact with abstract thought whatsoever.
--
ernobes' forum:
http://forum.asiaco.com/ernobe/
Ron Peterson
> "Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central
> metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God
> or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim
> that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are
> so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do
> not succeed in making a coherent factual claim.
I can see the inadequacy of this definition in that it doesn't address
whether belief in god is harmful. Also, it doesn't address other
dogmatic beliefs.
Ron
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
While one might argue that the truth or no of religion, fundamentally
is there a God, or not, is secondary to the moral and social
consequences of believing that there is, I wouldn't have thought that
a definition of atheism is predicated on the notion of moral
rectitude, any more than the definition of (say) a mammal is
predicated on whether they're good creatures or bad creatures.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." - Attrib: Pauline Reage.
HELL? <http://www.city-of-dis.co.uk/entry/hell.html>
Inexpensive video to mpeg-1 conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>
Live Video? <http://www.video2cd.co.uk/livetv-01.html>
- there is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Jeff Dee
Viola: the circular argument of theism "Humanity is
conscious, beyond its own rational powers, of having
been created". Therefor humanity WAS created?
Nonsense. That's like saying that a mental patient
who "is conscious, beyond his own rational powers"
of being Napoleon really IS Napoleon, just because
he irrationally believes that he is. Proof of an
assumption comes from *evidence*, not from sheer
irrational belief.
Besides, only SOME human beings believe that they
have been created. It is not a universal axiom.
> Religions attempt to
> explain this concept as far as it is humanly possible.
No they don't. Religions attempt to CASH IN on the
fact that many human beings irrationally believe
that they've been created. They don't "explain" it
at all, because "an incomprehensible God did it"
is not an explanation.
> Atheism on the other
> hand implies that we reject all concepts that appear to us incoherent or
> unintelligible, but then we would not have an intelligence superior to that
> of a cow.
No, atheism is based on the rational principle that
we SHOULD reject all concepts that really ARE
unintelligible. There are standards by which an
idea's intelligibility can be measured, and those
standards do *not* reduce us to the level of dumb
animals.
> Nay, the cows intelligence would then be superior, as it has no
> contact with abstract thought whatsoever.
Rejecting unintelligible claims is NOT the same as
"rejecting all abstract thought".
-Jeff Dee
--
"It is as morally bad not to care whether a thing is true
or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to
care how you got your money as long as you have got it."
-Edmund Way Teale, "Circle of the Seasons", 1950
unig...@io.com * http://www.io.com/unigames/index.html
* * * AA #1355 - Knight of the BAAWA since 10/26/99 * * *
Erin Cowan
ernobe wrote:
> In order to point out the important ways in which any concept is incoherent
> or unintelligible requires that we first define that concept as far as
> intelligibility or coherence allows.
Not true. By your standard nothing could be said to be incoherent because we
would first have to define it. But an incoherent thing often lacks a clear
definition to begin with. We simply say that concepts like god have no clear
referent. Since god has yet to be defined in any meaningful way it is pointless
to consider the concept further, until a clear definition can be formulated by
theists. Otherwise it is not even clear what it is we are trying to analyze.
Try reading Nielsen's, _Philosophy and Atheism_. I would be happy to discuss
any aspects of it.
> Now humanity is conscious, beyond its
> own rational powers, of having been created along with objects that have not
> been the result of its own rational constructs.
So you claim. I suspect that you are simply talking about mystic mumbo-jumbo.
You don't happen to have an example of such an object, aside from the incoherent
entity of god, do you?
> Religions attempt to
> explain this concept as far as it is humanly possible.
Which concept? The concept of creation or the concept of things beyond our own
rational powers? And as far as I can see religion does not attempt to explain
these concepts. It simply asserts that these things happened. End of story.
> Atheism on the other
> hand implies that we reject all concepts that appear to us incoherent or
> unintelligible,
Not at all. However, if nobody can state a concept in a way that is at all
intelligible then it cannot be further analyzed by logic or any other process.
In general atheists try not to deal in appearances. They often use science to
continually tests claims about knowledge in the physical world. They use logic
to test abstract types of knowledge or argumentation.
> but then we would not have an intelligence superior to that
> of a cow. Nay,
I believe it is moo, not nay and a cow probably is smarter than a theist to the
extent that a cow does not subvert its intellect by deceiving itself into
believing things for no other reason than fear or convenience.
> the cows intelligence would then be superior, as it has no
> contact with abstract thought whatsoever.
Abstraction has nothing to do with god. Abstraction is simply the ability to
represent a problem independently of specific details. That is what logic is
all about. Your recommendation that we try to analyse the unintelligible is not
abstract thinking. It is faulty mystical thinking.
Ron Peterson
> While one might argue that the truth or no of religion, fundamentally
> is there a God, or not, is secondary to the moral and social
> consequences of believing that there is, I wouldn't have thought that
> a definition of atheism is predicated on the notion of moral
> rectitude, any more than the definition of (say) a mammal is
> predicated on whether they're good creatures or bad creatures.
If there are moral and social consequences of believing in a god,
then there should be moral and social consequences of believing
that there is no god.
If there is no benefit for believing there is no god, then there
is no point in arguing with those that maintain there is a god.
If there is a benefit for believing there is no god, why isn't
there a benefit for doubting other dogmas?
I don't find your analogy with defining animals to be meaningful
to me, and generally find most analogies misleading.
Ron
STEVEN.BOTTS
ernobe <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote in message
news:9a55tc$no8$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
that which is rationaly insupportable rather than what we are compelled to
believe by reason and evidence.
Steve
Therion Ware
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Therion Ware (tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac) wrote:
>
>> While one might argue that the truth or no of religion, fundamentally
>> is there a God, or not, is secondary to the moral and social
>> consequences of believing that there is, I wouldn't have thought that
>> a definition of atheism is predicated on the notion of moral
>> rectitude, any more than the definition of (say) a mammal is
>> predicated on whether they're good creatures or bad creatures.
>
>If there are moral and social consequences of believing in a god,
>then there should be moral and social consequences of believing
>that there is no god.
>
>If there is no benefit for believing there is no god, then there
>is no point in arguing with those that maintain there is a god.
>
>If there is a benefit for believing there is no god, why isn't
>there a benefit for doubting other dogmas?
There might well be, but what does any benefit (or the opposite) have
to do with what it is?
>I don't find your analogy with defining animals to be meaningful
>to me, and generally find most analogies misleading.
No doubt.
*nemo*
> many years a professor of philosophy at U Calgary.
Lovely. An idiot who has "intellectual authority." Just what the world
needs.
> Andy.
> "Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central
> metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God
> or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim
> that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are
> so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do
> not succeed in making a coherent factual claim.
OK. Let's look at this. First off, there's the language problem. It does no
bloody good to go around making new definitions for words that are already
well-defined. It makes for incoherency, which is death for people who want
to communicate. It is good only for those who want to bullshit people who
think professors know what they're talking about.
Second, atheism is not "a critique." It is a lack of theism. Critiques come
from philosophy. And just how often have we heard that we are in denial of
the axiomatic "existence of *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always trying to
slip into conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
> The claims, in an important sense, do not make sense, and, while
> believers are under the illusion that there is something intelligible
> to be believed in, in reality there is not. These seemingly grand
> cosmological claims are in reality best understood as myths or
> ideological claims reflecting a confused understanding of their
> utterers' situation.
Sounds a little like a deist or pantheist...
> Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that
> it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate
> characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to
> be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the
> following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is
> being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects
> belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a
> God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin,
> Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept
> of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory,
> incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern
> or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God
> because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an
> atheistic substance--e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or
> "God" is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.
Sounds like this fellow isn't aware of the difference between strong and
weak atheism...
>
> This atheism is a much more complex notion, as are its various
> reflective rejections. It is clear from what has been said about the
> concept of God in developed forms of Judeo-Christianity that the more
> crucial form of atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is
> false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God
> because the concept of God is said not to make sense--to be in some
> important way incoherent or unintelligible."
Atheism isn't properly defined in relation to "Judeo-Christianity." It
involves the same stance toward all religions. It constantly amazes me that
so many people don't seem to understand this.
> Cheers
> #################################################
> " Genetic exuberance - - the zest for life that
> makes this planet dance in the sun."
> Andy Mulcahy
--
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.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Always up for a little grilled sacred scroll
-
With just a dash of innuendo added for fun...
**************************************************
Ron Peterson
> OK. Let's look at this. First off, there's the language problem. It does no
> bloody good to go around making new definitions for words that are already
> well-defined. It makes for incoherency, which is death for people who want
> to communicate. It is good only for those who want to bullshit people who
> think professors know what they're talking about.
I don't think the term atheism is well defined. Some try to define
the term based on its etymological construction rather than what
are the typical views of atheists.
> Second, atheism is not "a critique." It is a lack of theism. Critiques come
> from philosophy. And just how often have we heard that we are in denial of
> the axiomatic "existence of *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always trying to
> slip into conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
Do you mean something different by the term "theism" than the belief
in the existence of a god?
> Sounds like this fellow isn't aware of the difference between strong and
> weak atheism...
What is the difference?
> Atheism isn't properly defined in relation to "Judeo-Christianity." It
> involves the same stance toward all religions. It constantly amazes me that
> so many people don't seem to understand this.
What stance do atheists have toward all religions? And, what is a
religion?
Ron
Andrew Mulcahy
wrote:
While believing in something that is not true may not be too
bright, it might not necessarily be harmful. In earlier days, when we
had no adequate explanations for lightning, drought's, plagues and
the like, the god theory offered the solace of helping us believe we
could figure out why these things were happening, if nothing else.
Also, it offered its followers a sort of shield against their current
king/dictator before democracy evolved.
Cheers,
Andy
Though science has long since pulled the plug on
religion's life support system, the patient stll
has convulsions and will not die easily."
Andy Mulcahy
Andrew Mulcahy
<tw...@city-of-dis.com.eac> wrote:
>On 31 Mar 2001 14:24:05 -0600, ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson)
>wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>>Andrew Mulcahy (m...@islandnet.com) wrote:
>>> "Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central
>>> metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God
>>> or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim
>>> that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are
>>> so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do
>>> not succeed in making a coherent factual claim.
>>
>>I can see the inadequacy of this definition in that it doesn't address
>>whether belief in god is harmful. Also, it doesn't address other
>>dogmatic beliefs.
>
>While one might argue that the truth or no of religion, fundamentally
>is there a God, or not, is secondary to the moral and social
>consequences of believing that there is, I wouldn't have thought that
>a definition of atheism is predicated on the notion of moral
>rectitude, any more than the definition of (say) a mammal is
>predicated on whether they're good creatures or bad creatures.
But it is pure illusion to think that belief in a deity has
resulted in better moral behavior amongst us. For instance take the
man who was recently convicted for beating his wife with a wooden rod
This fellow had also beaten his stepsons on occasion for varied
biblical infractions and his defense was that he
was simply obeying his Bible. He said he is a good Christian. And he
is. He accepts the Bible at face value and as the word of his deity.
He is a good Christian.
In contrast, it has been the emerging secular society,
enlightened by science, that has over the last century or so focused
its attention on those aspects of the bible that could best promote
nurturing and cooperation. Religious leaders, under pressure from the
secular world, have had to modify their interpretations of the bible
to suit - - an ongoing process, witness the Pope's recent rejection
of a physical hell. Christ has become a kind father figure,
compassionate and just chuck full of love for everybody
Compare this with the Christ who says in :
St. Matthew: 10:35 "For I am come to set a man at variance
with his father ,and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
10:36 "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Here we see a vain, divisive personality willing to
tear asunder a loving family rather than lose his follower's
allegiance Hardly a good image for our young and our secular society
has assiduously avoided focusing on such passages. We read the bible
selectively and with good reason
The point is that it is our secular society that has promoted
those aspects of morality that encourage self respect instead of self
abnegation, free expression instead of blind obedience. The myth that
religion has fostered modern man's caring attitude is just that, a
myth. It has been our secular society, prodded by science and
universal education, that has been the keeper of
our moral standards.
Cheers,
Andy
################################################
Our natural aversion to killing one another can
be anesthetized with inspirational rhetoric.
ernobe
"*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote in message
news:KtEx6.4053$IJ1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of theism?
Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism? Wouldn't
you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
MEow
ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) on 1 Apr 2001 08:56:34 -0500
wrote:
>*nemo* (nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com) wrote:
>
>> OK. Let's look at this. First off, there's the language problem. It does no
>> bloody good to go around making new definitions for words that are already
>> well-defined. It makes for incoherency, which is death for people who want
>> to communicate. It is good only for those who want to bullshit people who
>> think professors know what they're talking about.
>
>I don't think the term atheism is well defined. Some try to define
>the term based on its etymological construction rather than what
>are the typical views of atheists.
Once the typical view on earth was that it was flat - that didn't make
the world flat. Of course atheists knows, who they are better than
anyone else - just like I don't try to tell christians who they are.
>
>> Second, atheism is not "a critique." It is a lack of theism. Critiques come
>> from philosophy. And just how often have we heard that we are in denial of
>> the axiomatic "existence of *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always trying to
>> slip into conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
>
>Do you mean something different by the term "theism" than the belief
>in the existence of a god?
That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
>
>> Sounds like this fellow isn't aware of the difference between strong and
>> weak atheism...
>
>What is the difference?
Strong atheism: Belief the no deities exist
Weak atheism: Lack of belief that any deities exist
One is active and the other passive.
>
>> Atheism isn't properly defined in relation to "Judeo-Christianity." It
>> involves the same stance toward all religions. It constantly amazes me that
>> so many people don't seem to understand this.
>
>What stance do atheists have toward all religions? And, what is a
>religion?
>
A lack of belief in their deities and supernatural beings.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"It's time someone tapped into the huge market for milk and cheese from
happy lesbian sheep, cows and goats, inseminated wiv separated X-only
sperm." Oiorpata (Sheddie)
Fred Stone
You post into atheist/humanist newsgroups. You "inform" us of your belief, as if
we should share that belief just because you tell us. Then you wonder why we
reply to your messages? You obviously do have a reasoning problem.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
"Nothing happens in contradiction to nature;
only in contradiction to what we know of it."
[Agent Sculley, "X-Files"]
MEow
<ern...@costarricense.com> on Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:41:35 -0600 wrote:
>>
>> Second, atheism is not "a critique." It is a lack of theism. Critiques
>come
>> from philosophy. And just how often have we heard that we are in denial of
>> the axiomatic "existence of *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always trying
>to
>> slip into conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
>>
>We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of theism?
>Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism? Wouldn't
>you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make me
a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
they will have to become convinced that there is a deity - If I
informed you about the tiny, little elf in my closet - would that make
you an elfist? Hopefully you'd still lack elfism despite my
"informing" you.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that not all women fancy beefy men,
give me brains over brawn any day!" Marcia (AFV)
*nemo*
This is silly. "informing" someone of something means that you impart facts
to others. What you impart when you preach is your beliefs, not facts.
Coming up to me and bleating "Jeeeeezus wuvs you" does not remove my "lack
of theism." It fucking tickles me.
> Do you prefer lack of theism?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. It's called "objective reality."
> Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism?
Wouldn't
> you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
>
If all you were doing was bleating your way into the grave, sure. However,
there's that little problem of xianstrying to legislate us into the
churches. No way am I going to stand by idly for that.
Christopher A. Lee
<nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk> wrote:
>The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
><ern...@costarricense.com> on Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:41:35 -0600 wrote:
>>>
>>> Second, atheism is not "a critique." It is a lack of theism.
>>> Critiques come from philosophy. And just how often have we
>>> heard that we are in denial of the axiomatic "existence of
>>> *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always trying to slip into
>>> conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
The theists who do this are deliberately both ignorant and stupid. And
when they continue to do it there is no reason to treat them as
anything else. If they opened their eyes and brains they would realise
that there are hundreds of different religions each with its own
different axioms. And their axioms are worthless to an audience
outside the confines of their religion.
>>We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>>existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of theism?
>>Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism? Wouldn't
>>you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
>
>Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make me
>a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
>they will have to become convinced that there is a deity - If I
>informed you about the tiny, little elf in my closet - would that make
>you an elfist? Hopefully you'd still lack elfism despite my
>"informing" you.
Yet so many believers do it. They fondly imagine that its merest
mention means means we have to either believe it exists, believe it
doesn't or not know either way. When all that happened is that we now
know somebody else has a wacky belief.
Why are they so out of touch they don't realise non-Christians are
going to see Christianity and its claims in much the same way that
Christians see eg Islam, Hinduism and all the other religions? Very
few seem to be able to put it in that context. A lady who is a special
friend is a Catholic from India where her own religion is a tolerated
minority, can do this but none of her friends can.
In this case ernobe is so wrapped up in his fantasies that he is
incapable of realising how he and his ridiculous claims are seen by
those he makes them to. And he doesn't realise how obviously loaded
his language is, to the point of thought control. Concepts outside the
meanings he assigns to the words he uses, can't even exist for him.
STEVEN.BOTTS
.
> >
> >I can see the inadequacy of this definition in that it doesn't address
> >whether belief in god is harmful. Also, it doesn't address other
> >dogmatic beliefs.
> > Ron
> While believing in something that is not true may not be too
> bright, it might not necessarily be harmful. In earlier days, when we
> had no adequate explanations for lightning, drought's, plagues and
> the like, the god theory offered the solace of helping us believe we
> could figure out why these things were happening, if nothing else.
> Also, it offered its followers a sort of shield against their current
> king/dictator before democracy evolved.
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
laugh about what we believe to be a true understanding of how the world
works and concede that our beliefs were the best we could come up swith do
at the time.
Steve
Elf Sternberg
ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) writes:
I disagree. I think it's a very precise definition. The "harm"
of adopting the alternative is a consequence, not a premise, and
therefore is not valid for establishing an actual definition. Now, it's
perfectly useful as a rhetorical device, but not when we're being honest
about what it means to be an atheist.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Fast food restaurants are like gay bathhouses in San Francisco,
places where people go to engage in high-risk behaviors.
- Greg Critser
Andrew Mulcahy
Exactly. Before Copernicus, the average Joe ( illiterate,
remember) had good reason to believe the earth was at the center of
the universe, with the sun, moon, etc, revolving around our planet
Anyone who thought the world was revolving around the sun would have
to be pretty stupid. A few cards short of a full deck. The fact that
we now know it does revolve around the sun, does not change that
assessment in any way..
Similarly, if we find in another thousand years that the world
was actually made in six days, this by no means stops us from
assessing today's creationist as having the intellectual capability of
a lawn sprinkler.
Intelligent people, now and always, will have to make their
decisions on the basis of the information they have at the time,
That is why I believe the word " believe" should be done away
with, except for 'believers." We don't believe, we assume, we
guess, we assess.
Cheers,
Andy
===================================================
"The end to evil will come when we have attained
that level of intellectual morality wherein we
will claim no thing to be true unless we can
substantiate such in a measurable,ostensive
manner." A G Mulcahy.
Emma Pease
*nemo* wrote:
>
>Andrew Mulcahy <m...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
>news:2n3cctg5k34ptm6c8...@4ax.com...
>> The following was written, I believe, by Kai Nielsen, who was for
>> many years a professor of philosophy at U Calgary.
>
>Lovely. An idiot who has "intellectual authority." Just what the world
>needs.
It is part (and only a small part) of the Encyclopaedia Britanica
article on Atheism.
http://search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=117394&sctn=1
and subsequent sections.
Emma
p.s. Prof. Nielsen seems to be an atheist (he is listed on the
internet infidels web site as a supporter of the site).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Ron Peterson
> Once the typical view on earth was that it was flat - that didn't make
> the world flat. Of course atheists knows, who they are better than
> anyone else - just like I don't try to tell christians who they are.
I think it works the same in both worlds. Some Christians are more
Christian than others and some atheists are more skeptical than others.
> Ron wrote:
> >Do you mean something different by the term "theism" than the belief
> >in the existence of a god?
> That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
Then would you conclude that Buddhism is not a theism?
> Ron wrote:
> >What stance do atheists have toward all religions? And, what is a
> >religion?
> A lack of belief in their deities and supernatural beings.
Then you would say Buddhism isn't a religion?
Ron
*nemo*
Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn9cfgi...@hypatia.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <KtEx6.4053$IJ1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> *nemo* wrote:
> >
> >Andrew Mulcahy <m...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
> >news:2n3cctg5k34ptm6c8...@4ax.com...
> >> The following was written, I believe, by Kai Nielsen, who was for
> >> many years a professor of philosophy at U Calgary.
> >
> >Lovely. An idiot who has "intellectual authority." Just what the world
> >needs.
>
> It is part (and only a small part) of the Encyclopaedia Britanica
> article on Atheism.
>
> http://search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=117394&sctn=1
> and subsequent sections.
Hmmmm. Intersting.
>
> Emma
>
> p.s. Prof. Nielsen seems to be an atheist (he is listed on the
> internet infidels web site as a supporter of the site).
I still think I disagree with what Nielsen wrote in the quoted section.
Perhaps if there was a larger context that wrapped around it, I'd feel
better about it, but I doubt it. After all, he mentioned in the opening
paragraph that atheism is defined related to "the central metaphysical
beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God
or spiritual beings..." which I objected to. This idea of "salvation" points
squarely at the Judeo-Christian-Muslim group of religions, and I think that
falsely limits the scope of it. Atheism is skepticism in relation to *all*
beliefs in supernatural existence.
So if I've personally offended the Doctor, I apologize. But I stand by my
objections to the quote presented.
>
> --
> \----
> |\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
> |_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
--
Ron Peterson
> I disagree. I think it's a very precise definition. The "harm"
> of adopting the alternative is a consequence, not a premise, and
> therefore is not valid for establishing an actual definition. Now, it's
> perfectly useful as a rhetorical device, but not when we're being honest
> about what it means to be an atheist.
I have a feeling that atheists are afraid to be honest about what
it means to be an atheist.
Ron
Ron Peterson
> While believing in something that is not true may not be too
> bright, it might not necessarily be harmful. ...
But believing in something that is not true may be harmful in some
circumstances.
Ron
Peter Walker
<ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>MEow (nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk) wrote:
>
>> That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
>
>Then would you conclude that Buddhism is not a theism?
Once again, there are literally millions of deities in Buddhism. None
with any significant cosmogenic or salvatory status, but the claim that
there are no gods in Buddhism is rank ignorance.
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | WWW: http://spacsun.rice.edu/~pww
BAAWA Master Squire | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
Peter Walker
<ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>existence,
No, you don't inform, you assert. Baldly, one might add.
MEow
wrote:
>
>> Once the typical view on earth was that it was flat - that didn't make
>> the world flat. Of course atheists knows, who they are better than
>> anyone else - just like I don't try to tell christians who they are.
>
>I think it works the same in both worlds. Some Christians are more
>Christian than others and some atheists are more skeptical than others.
I don't accept the claim of someone being "more christian" than
others and scepticism does not make a person more or less atheistic.
>
>> Ron wrote:
>> >Do you mean something different by the term "theism" than the belief
>> >in the existence of a god?
>
>> That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
>
>Then would you conclude that Buddhism is not a theism?
Yes - There are AFAIK people who call themselves Buddhist atheists.
>
>> Ron wrote:
>> >What stance do atheists have toward all religions? And, what is a
>> >religion?
>
>> A lack of belief in their deities and supernatural beings.
>
>Then you would say Buddhism isn't a religion?
>
That's a point of discussion - it depends on how you define religion
or how you define "supernatural being". I'd define it as a religion
though.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"'Cause knives are handy things to have around, for all kinds of
not-stabbing-people purposes? I carry one." The Grouchybeast (Sheddie)
MEow
<p...@mac.com> on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 22:42:35 -0400 wrote:
>>
>>> That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
>>
>>Then would you conclude that Buddhism is not a theism?
>
>Once again, there are literally millions of deities in Buddhism. None
>with any significant cosmogenic or salvatory status, but the claim that
>there are no gods in Buddhism is rank ignorance.
Well thank you for telling me/us that. I sure didn't know! (Literally
speaking, no sarcasm or anything...).
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"My dog, my dog! Why hast thou mistaken me?" Humbug (Sheddie)
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>existence, so you no longer lack theism.
Due to the fact that you assert that there is a god, we believe in
that god? I don't think so.
>Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism? Wouldn't
>you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
If you didn't post to alt.atheism.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
STEVEN.BOTTS
Peter Walker <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:010420012242359264%p...@mac.com...
> >
> >> That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
> >
> >Then would you conclude that Buddhism is not a theism?
>
> Once again, there are literally millions of deities in Buddhism. None
> with any significant cosmogenic or salvatory status, but the claim that
> there are no gods in Buddhism is rank ignorance.
Depends. There is such a thing as "junk" Buddhism which deals in spells and
amulets for a better future incarnation, as well as deities to pray to for
success in this life. The original teachings of Guatama, however, contain
no refference to a God or gods.
Steve
Frank Wustner
> Peter Walker <p...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>> That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
> >>Then would you conclude that Buddhism is not a theism?
> >Once again, there are literally millions of deities in Buddhism. None
> >with any significant cosmogenic or salvatory status, but the claim that
> >there are no gods in Buddhism is rank ignorance.
> Well thank you for telling me/us that. I sure didn't know! (Literally
> speaking, no sarcasm or anything...).
From what I understand, the above claim is true...BUT, belief in
those deities is entirely optional. Maybe not optional for the
individual worshipers, but certainly for the sects of Buddhism.
So (assuming I'm correct), while there are gods in buddhism, the
buddhist need not be a theist.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|
|"I, too, believe in fate... |
|the fate a man makes for himself." |
|Lord Soth ("Time of the Twins") |
|-----------------------------------|
| Want to email me? Go to the URL |
| above and email me from there. |
|-----------------------------------|
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
And I have more than just a feeling that you are an arrogant idiot as
well as a liar. What's your point? Demonstration that a lot of morons
with a limited understanding of reality think they know more than we
atheists do, about what our perspective is? Because you lot always
reinterpret what we say based on presum ptions etc that don't even
apply outside your theism?
Ron Peterson
> Ron wrote:
> >I have a feeling that atheists are afraid to be honest about what
> >it means to be an atheist.
> And I have more than just a feeling that you are an arrogant idiot as
> well as a liar. What's your point? Demonstration that a lot of morons
> with a limited understanding of reality think they know more than we
> atheists do, about what our perspective is? Because you lot always
> reinterpret what we say based on presum ptions etc that don't even
> apply outside your theism?
I don't feel that I am being arrogant or a liar. I am not a theist
and don't see how you get the impression that I am.
I have heard atheists on radio and TV and read atheist publications.
My point is that the simple dictionary definition of atheism doesn't
represent most of what the typical atheist believes.
And I think that it is silly to label Christians as atheists because
they don't believe in Greek and Roman gods.
Ron
ernobe
"Jeff Dee" <unig...@io.com> wrote in message
news:3AC65297...@io.com...
> ernobe wrote:
> >
> > "Andrew Mulcahy" <m...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
> > news:2n3cctg5k34ptm6c8...@4ax.com...
> > > The following was written, I believe, by Kai Nielsen, who was for
> > > many years a professor of philosophy at U Calgary.
> > > "Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central
> > > metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God
> > > that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are
> > > so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do
> > > not succeed in making a coherent factual claim.
> > > believers are under the illusion that there is something intelligible
> > > to be believed in, in reality there is not. These seemingly grand
> > > cosmological claims are in reality best understood as myths or
> > > ideological claims reflecting a confused understanding of their
> > > utterers' situation.
> > > Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that
> > > it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate
> > > characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to
> > > be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the
> > > following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is
> > > being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects
> > > belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a
> > > God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin,
> > > Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept
> > > of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory,
> > > incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern
> > > or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God
> > > because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an
> > > atheistic substance--e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or
> > > "God" is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.
> > >
> > > This atheism is a much more complex notion, as are its various
> > > reflective rejections. It is clear from what has been said about the
> > > concept of God in developed forms of Judeo-Christianity that the more
> > > crucial form of atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is
> > > false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God
> > > because the concept of God is said not to make sense--to be in some
> > > important way incoherent or unintelligible."
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > In order to point out the important ways in which any concept is
incoherent
> > or unintelligible requires that we first define that concept as far as
> > intelligibility or coherence allows. Now humanity is conscious, beyond
its
> > own rational powers, of having been created along with objects that have
not
> > been the result of its own rational constructs.
>
> Viola: the circular argument of theism "Humanity is
> conscious, beyond its own rational powers, of having
> been created". Therefor humanity WAS created?
>
> Nonsense. That's like saying that a mental patient
> who "is conscious, beyond his own rational powers"
> of being Napoleon really IS Napoleon, just because
> he irrationally believes that he is. Proof of an
> assumption comes from *evidence*, not from sheer
> irrational belief.
>
I do not seek to prove that humanity was created, because I do not assume
that humanity was not created. Knowing what the evidences of humanities
creation proves depends on acknowledging the truth of humanities creation.
Seems like just because I'm now giving you signs of the Creators existence,
you suddenly back off and even deny humanities existence. Talk about
unintelligibility!
ernobe
"Erin Cowan" <ec...@muunm.edu> wrote in message
news:3AC656B7...@muunm.edu...
>
>
> ernobe wrote:
>
> > In order to point out the important ways in which any concept is
incoherent
> > or unintelligible requires that we first define that concept as far as
> > intelligibility or coherence allows.
>
we
> would first have to define it. But an incoherent thing often lacks a
clear
> definition to begin with. We simply say that concepts like god have no
clear
> referent. Since god has yet to be defined in any meaningful way it is
pointless
> to consider the concept further, until a clear definition can be
formulated by
> theists. Otherwise it is not even clear what it is we are trying to
analyze.
> Try reading Nielsen's, _Philosophy and Atheism_. I would be happy to
discuss
> any aspects of it.
>
> > Now humanity is conscious, beyond its
> > own rational powers, of having been created along with objects that have
not
> > been the result of its own rational constructs.
>
mumbo-jumbo.
> You don't happen to have an example of such an object, aside from the
incoherent
> entity of god, do you?
>
> > Religions attempt to
> > explain this concept as far as it is humanly possible.
>
> Which concept? The concept of creation or the concept of things beyond
our own
> rational powers? And as far as I can see religion does not attempt to
explain
> these concepts. It simply asserts that these things happened. End of
story.
>
> > Atheism on the other
> > hand implies that we reject all concepts that appear to us incoherent or
> > unintelligible,
>
> Not at all. However, if nobody can state a concept in a way that is at
all
> intelligible then it cannot be further analyzed by logic or any other
process.
> In general atheists try not to deal in appearances. They often use
science to
> continually tests claims about knowledge in the physical world. They use
logic
> to test abstract types of knowledge or argumentation.
>
> > but then we would not have an intelligence superior to that
> > of a cow. Nay,
>
> I believe it is moo, not nay and a cow probably is smarter than a theist
to the
> extent that a cow does not subvert its intellect by deceiving itself into
> believing things for no other reason than fear or convenience.
>
> > the cows intelligence would then be superior, as it has no
> > contact with abstract thought whatsoever.
>
> Abstraction has nothing to do with god. Abstraction is simply the ability
to
> represent a problem independently of specific details. That is what logic
is
> all about. Your recommendation that we try to analyse the unintelligible
is not
> abstract thinking. It is faulty mystical thinking.
>
If you can't make a unified statement of what your objections are to my
views, but must instead interpolate a confusing set of random
misinterpretations into what I say, then who lacks the ability to 'represent
a problem independently of specific details'? I do not recommend that you
analyze the unintelligible, simply that you do not render what I say
unintelligible through your own faulty mystical thinking. After all your
analysis will you now claim that it is not even clear to you what
intelligible things I gave you to analyze? Will you claim that you have
given me a coherent answer, thus deceiving yourself 'into believing things
for no other reason than fear or convenience.'?
dooniskey
>
> If you can't make a unified statement of what your objections are to my
> views, but must instead interpolate a confusing set of random
> misinterpretations into what I say, then who lacks the ability to
'represent
> a problem independently of specific details'? I do not recommend that you
> analyze the unintelligible, simply that you do not render what I say
> unintelligible through your own faulty mystical thinking. After all your
> analysis will you now claim that it is not even clear to you what
> intelligible things I gave you to analyze? Will you claim that you have
> given me a coherent answer, thus deceiving yourself 'into believing things
> for no other reason than fear or convenience.'
sometimes I think this poetry was meant for me and no one else but me.
ernobe
"STEVEN.BOTTS" <STEVEN...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9a67g7$6dua$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...> news:9a55tc$no8$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
> incoherent
> > or unintelligible requires that we first define that concept as far as
> its
> > own rational powers, of having been created along with objects that have
> not
> > explain this concept as far as it is humanly possible. Atheism on the
> other
> > hand implies that we reject all concepts that appear to us incoherent or
> that
> > of a cow. Nay, the cows intelligence would then be superior, as it has
no
> > contact with abstract thought whatsoever.
> >
> >
believe
> that which is rationaly insupportable rather than what we are compelled to
> believe by reason and evidence.
>
> Steve
>
Theism also rejects 'all concepts based on the will to believe that which is
rationaly insupportable' but believes that in order to do this we must first
define all concepts that are rationally supportable. Otherwise we find
ourselves willing to believe that which is rationally insupportable, and
thus rejecting all concepts whatsoever.
ernobe
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:3AC7442E...@earthlink.net...
The fact that you should share my belief among yourselves does not imply
that you know what the appropriate response to my belief is. However you
already imagine that you do know what the approriate response is, therefore
I do not inform you of my belief in order that you should share it, but to
prove it to you so that you might want to share it. That is the rational
thing to do. Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists, you're
all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to even
be interested in understanding each other.
ernobe
"MEow" <nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk> wrote in message
news:q9kectgrn8841ficm...@4ax.com...
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:41:35 -0600 wrote:
> >>
> >> Second, atheism is not "a critique." It is a lack of theism. Critiques
> >come
> >> from philosophy. And just how often have we heard that we are in denial
of
> >> the axiomatic "existence of *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always
trying
> >to
> >> slip into conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
> >>
> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
> >existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of theism?
> >Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism?
Wouldn't
> >you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
>
> Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make me
> a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
> they will have to become convinced that there is a deity -
On the other hand if someone were to become convinced that there is no
deity, that would make him a denier of those who are convinced that there is
a deity, not a denier of the existence of the deity, because the deity
speaks thru those who believe in him.
ernobe
If, as you said, all I'm doing is imparting my beliefs to you, as opposed to
facts, it appears that I'm not among those who would want to legislate so
that you will in fact be in church. Neither would I want to. You're
groundless rejection of my beliefs, without inquiring into the facts, the
objective reality, of my beliefs, does not qualify you to be in church.
ernobe
"Robert" <rob...@deleteairmail.net> wrote in message
news:5568EC4A0CAB1B1B.AD4AABA5...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2001 09:41:35 -0600, "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"*nemo*" <nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote in message
> >news:KtEx6.4053$IJ1.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>
> >> Andrew Mulcahy <m...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:2n3cctg5k34ptm6c8...@4ax.com...
>
> >> the axiomatic "existence of *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always
trying
> >>to slip into conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
> >>
> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
> >Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism?
Wouldn't
> >you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
>
> It would be very nice if we could afford to ignore you.
> Unfortunately you are a real danger to us and our freedom.
>
> Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in
> mind,it may offer you a way to make him your friend. If not
> , you can kill him without hate-- and quickly.
>
> __Robert Heinlein
>
> A friend would show a willingness to respect a difference
> of beliefs, a trait uncommon to theist. A threat comes from
> a enemy not a friend.
Freedom from common beliefs is freedom from friendship, and we do not wish
to make friends with those who believe that respecting differences of belief
is superior to respecting a common belief.
ernobe
> In article <9a7i4k$lek$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, ernobe
> <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>
> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
> >existence,
>
> No, you don't inform, you assert. Baldly, one might add.
>
God, does not mean that we should prove His existence by our own assertion.
Logical evidence is required for a logical proof, but as there is no logical
evidence for the belief in the non-existence of God, we therefore inform you
of the self-evident realities you deny.
ernobe
"Christopher A. Lee" <chri...@sevenmil.com> wrote in message
news:ptmectkvak86e0vet...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:05:40 +0200, MEow
> <nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk> wrote:
>
> >The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> >>>
> >>> Second, atheism is not "a critique." It is a lack of theism.
> >>> heard that we are in denial of the axiomatic "existence of
> >>> *GAWD!*" thing that theists are always trying to slip into
> >>> conversations? It's rather disengenuous. And tiresome.
>
> when they continue to do it there is no reason to treat them as
> anything else. If they opened their eyes and brains they would realise
> that there are hundreds of different religions each with its own
> different axioms. And their axioms are worthless to an audience
> outside the confines of their religion.
>
> >>We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
> >>Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism?
Wouldn't
> >>you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
> >
> >a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
> >informed you about the tiny, little elf in my closet - would that make
> >you an elfist? Hopefully you'd still lack elfism despite my
> >"informing" you.
>
> Yet so many believers do it. They fondly imagine that its merest
> mention means means we have to either believe it exists, believe it
> doesn't or not know either way. When all that happened is that we now
> know somebody else has a wacky belief.
>
> Why are they so out of touch they don't realise non-Christians are
> going to see Christianity and its claims in much the same way that
> Christians see eg Islam, Hinduism and all the other religions? Very
> few seem to be able to put it in that context. A lady who is a special
> friend is a Catholic from India where her own religion is a tolerated
> minority, can do this but none of her friends can.
>
> In this case ernobe is so wrapped up in his fantasies that he is
> incapable of realising how he and his ridiculous claims are seen by
> those he makes them to. And he doesn't realise how obviously loaded
> his language is, to the point of thought control. Concepts outside the
> meanings he assigns to the words he uses, can't even exist for him.
>
Give me one instance of a meaning that I have assigned to a word that is not
the commonly held, established dictionary meaning of the word. Anywhere
else except in this NG, would references to elves be considered wacky, but I
tolerate them because I understand some history and realize how, 2000 years
ago, Christians had to deal with your fantasies about elves. Pagan
mind-control, is it?
Fred Stone
Until you produce evidence for the existance of your deity the "appropriate
response to your belief" is incredulity.
> However you
> already imagine that you do know what the approriate response is, therefore
> I do not inform you of my belief in order that you should share it, but to
> prove it to you so that you might want to share it.
You've done plenty of "informing" and damn little "proving" so far. From what
I've seen, there is nothing coherent enough about your "belief" to make me want
to share it.
> That is the rational thing to do.
The rational thing to do is to demand evidence *without* assuming the
conclusion.
> Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists, you're
> all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to even
> be interested in understanding each other.
I have a very good understanding of theism. After all, I was raised to be a
theist. It didn't take.
I have studied the writings of a good number of religions, including
Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Navajo.
I share only one thing with all atheists. I don't believe in god(s)
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
"Nothing happens in contradiction to nature;
only in contradiction to what we know of it."
[Agent Sculley, "X-Files"]
Andrew Mulcahy
<nemo...@yahoo.NOSPMPLS.com> wrote:
>
>Andrew Mulcahy <m...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
>news:2n3cctg5k34ptm6c8...@4ax.com...
>> The following was written, I believe, by Kai Nielsen, who was for
>> many years a professor of philosophy at U Calgary.
>
>Lovely. An idiot who has "intellectual authority." Just what the world
>needs.
>
>> Andy.
>> "Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central
>> metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God
>> or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim
>> that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are
>> so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do
>> not succeed in making a coherent factual claim.
>
>OK. Let's look at this. First off, there's the language problem. It does no
>bloody good to go around making new definitions for words that are already
>well-defined. It makes for incoherency, which is death for people who want
>to communicate. It is good only for those who want to bullshit people who
>think professors know what they're talking about.
>Sounds like this fellow isn't aware of the difference between strong and
>weak atheism...
Which probably explains why he thought it necessary to explain
the term.. When we have so-called atheists talking about "strong
atheism" and "soft atheism,' we begin to sound as ludicrous as our
religious friends. One can imagine them saying: "Well, how strong is
a strong atheist compared to a soft atheist, and how many levels of
atheism exist between really strong atheism and truly soft atheism?"
Ever heard of strong theism and soft theism? And when you take into
account all the long threads about atheism, strong or otherwise,
agnosticism, and whatever definition of agnosticism you prefer, the
theist might well get the idea we don't know what it is we stand for
( or against) or that we are maybe a little afraid?
The term was originally invented by religious leaders as a
mark of condemnation, but as science and time have passed, the term
has evolved, at least in my opinion, to represent a person's rejection
of silly, nonsensical claims. After all, the idea that there is some
invisible Big Daddy somewhere who manufactures and now runs this world
is so childishly simplistic, so obviously contrived, that it is hard
to believe any grown adult could possibly buy such pure crap. An
atheist simply says that, and claims similar to that, are pure
nonsense , and so rejects them.
(Personally, I call myself a Monist, as opposed to dualism,
which I think is a lot simpler and less likely to be misunderstood by
our religious friends.).
Cheers,
Andy
* * * * * * *
"Once we can see the earthworm as every bit our equal
and that this in no way impugns upon our worth.
we are on our way to developing an intelligent,
objective, worldview"
agm
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee (chri...@sevenmil.com) wrote:
OK, but "I have a feeling that atheists are afraid to be honest about
what it means to be an atheist" is a strange remark for an atheist to
make. I'm not, and neither are any atheists I know. It's the sort of
remark somebody who demands we tell them what atheism _is_ rather than
what it isn't, would say. When atheists themselves know that all it
is, is a convenient label for what we aren't.
>
> Ron
Elf Sternberg
ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) writes:
I'm very honest about what I mean when I say I'm an atheist.
Boatwright's "god" is an absurdity, the common Christian "god" most
theists talk about is meaningless and incoherent, and Pastor Frank's
"god" is nothing but a substitute for atheistic substances such as
"love" and "honor." I don't see very much in all of these that are
meaningful to me.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Fast food restaurants are like gay bathhouses in San Francisco,
places where people go to engage in high-risk behaviors.
- Greg Critser
ernobe
Well I'll tell you one thing I believe is coherent. First you said that you
expect to share my belief among yourselves, now you say that that belief
should be coherent enough to share it. Geez! I think we're making
wonderful progress don't you think? (not meant to be sarcastic)
>
> > That is the rational thing to do.
>
> The rational thing to do is to demand evidence *without* assuming the
> conclusion.
>
> > Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists, you're
> > all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to
even
> > be interested in understanding each other.
>
> I have a very good understanding of theism. After all, I was raised to be
a
> theist. It didn't take.
> I have studied the writings of a good number of religions, including
> Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Navajo.
> I share only one thing with all atheists. I don't believe in god(s)
>
> --
> Fred Stone
> aa # 1369
> "Nothing happens in contradiction to nature;
> only in contradiction to what we know of it."
> [Agent Sculley, "X-Files"]
>
Fred Stone
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC7442E...@earthlink.net...
> > You've done plenty of "informing" and damn little "proving" so far. From
> what
> > I've seen, there is nothing coherent enough about your "belief" to make me
> want
> > to share it.
>
> Well I'll tell you one thing I believe is coherent. First you said that you
> expect to share my belief among yourselves, now you say that that belief
> should be coherent enough to share it.
Where the hell did I say that? What I said was:
"You 'inform' us of your belief, as if we should share that belief just because
you tell us."
Which means, in simpler English:
"We don't believe what you believe, just because you tell us that we should."
I also said "there is nothing coherent enough about your 'belief' to make me
want to share it."
Which means, in simpler English:
"Just because you spout incoherent drivel, don't expect me to fall on my knees!"
> Geez! I think we're making
> wonderful progress don't you think? (not meant to be sarcastic)
I realize that English is not your first language; please try to understand that
I'm saying that you have *not* caused any atheist to "cease to lack theism" nor
has your "informing" us made us "share your belief among ourselves."
Your belief is utterly incoherent to me, I do not understand it, you provide no
evidence to support it.
I categorically reject whatever it is that you're trying to push on me until you
make sense, and show evidence.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
"Nothing happens in contradiction to nature;
only in contradiction to what we know of it."
[Agent Sculley, "X-Files"]
MEow
>>
>> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>> >existence,
>>
>> No, you don't inform, you assert. Baldly, one might add.
>>
>Assertions imply certainty. The fact that you assert the non-existence of
>God, does not mean that we should prove His existence by our own assertion.
>Logical evidence is required for a logical proof, but as there is no logical
>evidence for the belief in the non-existence of God, we therefore inform you
>of the self-evident realities you deny.
Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief - and the burden of proof
lays on the person making a positive claim - Saying "I don't believe
in that" is not a positive claim, but just a lack of acceptance of a
positive claim.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"Wermt they emu's's good heliochopter fly ers ?" Baz (Sheddie)
MEow
>> >>
>> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>> >existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of theism?
>> >Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism?
>Wouldn't
>> >you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
>>
>> Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make me
>> a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
>> they will have to become convinced that there is a deity -
>
>On the other hand if someone were to become convinced that there is no
>deity, that would make him a denier of those who are convinced that there is
>a deity, not a denier of the existence of the deity, because the deity
>speaks thru those who believe in him.
That's what you believe that your god does - just because I don't
believe in what you claim that doesn't mean that I don't believe that
you exist. I could worship Winnie the Pooh if I wanted to and claim
that he speaks through me, but that wouldn't make me stop existing.
You're confusing the -ism with the -ist - They're not the same.
MEow
>>
>> A friend would show a willingness to respect a difference
>> of beliefs, a trait uncommon to theist. A threat comes from
>> a enemy not a friend.
>
>Freedom from common beliefs is freedom from friendship, and we do not wish
>to make friends with those who believe that respecting differences of belief
>is superior to respecting a common belief.
So - you freely admit that you judge people based on what they believe
rather than on their human qualities and that you see tolerances as a
negative thing? Such thought is what spawned the crusades and the
killing of the native Americans to name just two.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"I must have dreamt the crusades!" Robert Bush (AFV)
Peter Walker
<ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>"Peter Walker" <p...@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:010420012240362076%p...@mac.com...
>> In article <9a7i4k$lek$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, ernobe
>> <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>>
>> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>> >existence,
>>
>> No, you don't inform, you assert. Baldly, one might add.
>>
>Assertions imply certainty.
On the part of the one asserting, perhaps - but this has no correlation
to the truth value of the assertion.
>The fact that you assert the non-existence of
>God,
I make no such assertion, bonehead. The negative of the proposition is
the default assumption, until the proposition is proven.
And if the deity is self-evident, then you shouldn't have a hard time
proving its existence to us. Instead, you dance like a performer in a
Flaminco concert. Why is that?
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | WWW: http://spacsun.rice.edu/~pww
BAAWA Master Squire | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
chibiabos
<ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
> The fact that you should share my belief among yourselves does not imply
> that you know what the appropriate response to my belief is. However you
> already imagine that you do know what the approriate response is, therefore
> I do not inform you of my belief in order that you should share it, but to
> prove it to you so that you might want to share it. That is the rational
> thing to do. Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists, you're
> all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to even
> be interested in understanding each other.
Forgive me. I've never seen you in alt.atheism before, so I don't mean
to be rude. Is English your first language? I'm having a great deal of
difficulty following your narrative.
-chib
--
I'm counting on you lord, please don't let me down
Prove that you love me and buy the next round
--Janis Joplin, "Mercedes Benz"
Packman
>
> In article <9aa32l$44dor$1...@ID-82761.news.dfncis.de>, ernobe
> <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that you should share my belief among yourselves does not imply
> > that you know what the appropriate response to my belief is. However you
> > already imagine that you do know what the approriate response is, therefore
> > I do not inform you of my belief in order that you should share it, but to
> > prove it to you so that you might want to share it. That is the rational
> > thing to do. Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists, you're
> > all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to even
> > be interested in understanding each other.
> Forgive me. I've never seen you in alt.atheism before, so I don't mean
> to be rude. Is English your first language? I'm having a great deal of
> difficulty following your narrative.
Glad I'm not the only one who couldn't understand what he was trying to say.
ernobe
"chibiabos" <chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:020420011326015096%chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net...
> In article <9aa32l$44dor$1...@ID-82761.news.dfncis.de>, ernobe
> <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that you should share my belief among yourselves does not imply
> > that you know what the appropriate response to my belief is. However
you
> > already imagine that you do know what the approriate response is,
therefore
> > I do not inform you of my belief in order that you should share it, but
to
> > prove it to you so that you might want to share it. That is the
rational
> > thing to do. Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists,
you're
> > all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to
even
> > be interested in understanding each other.
>
>
> Forgive me. I've never seen you in alt.atheism before, so I don't mean
> to be rude. Is English your first language? I'm having a great deal of
> difficulty following your narrative.
>
> -chib
>
that bad.
ernobe
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:57:06 -0600 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
> >> >existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of
theism?
> >> >Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism?
> >Wouldn't
> >> >you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
> >>
> >> Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make me
> >> a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
> >> they will have to become convinced that there is a deity -
> >
> >On the other hand if someone were to become convinced that there is no
> >deity, that would make him a denier of those who are convinced that there
is
> >a deity, not a denier of the existence of the deity, because the deity
> >speaks thru those who believe in him.
>
> That's what you believe that your god does - just because I don't
> believe in what you claim that doesn't mean that I don't believe that
> you exist. I could worship Winnie the Pooh if I wanted to and claim
> that he speaks through me, but that wouldn't make me stop existing.
But if you're an atheist it doesn't make any sense whether you're existing
or not, because absolutely nothing speaks thru you.
stillsunny
wrote:
>
>"chibiabos" <chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:020420011326015096%chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net...
>> In article <9aa32l$44dor$1...@ID-82761.news.dfncis.de>, ernobe
>> <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The fact that you should share my belief among yourselves does not imply
>> > that you know what the appropriate response to my belief is. However
>you
>> > already imagine that you do know what the approriate response is,
>therefore
>> > I do not inform you of my belief in order that you should share it, but
>to
>> > prove it to you so that you might want to share it. That is the
>rational
>> > thing to do. Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists,
>you're
>> > all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to
>even
>> > be interested in understanding each other.
>>
>>
>> Forgive me. I've never seen you in alt.atheism before, so I don't mean
>> to be rude. Is English your first language? I'm having a great deal of
>> difficulty following your narrative.
>>
>> -chib
Oh, shoot.
Chib, that was wonderful and cordial and friendly. I appreciated a
post which asked nicely for clarification before the flaming :-)
>You don't mean to be rude, but I find it doubtful that my typing skills are
>that bad.
He wasn't rude. He didn't understand what you said, and he offered a
possible explanation and asked for clarification. He didn't flame
you.
Sunny
ernobe
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:22:50 -0600 wrote:
> >>
> >> A friend would show a willingness to respect a difference
> >> of beliefs, a trait uncommon to theist. A threat comes from
> >> a enemy not a friend.
> >
> >Freedom from common beliefs is freedom from friendship, and we do not
wish
> >to make friends with those who believe that respecting differences of
belief
> >is superior to respecting a common belief.
>
> So - you freely admit that you judge people based on what they believe
> rather than on their human qualities and that you see tolerances as a
> negative thing? Such thought is what spawned the crusades and the
> killing of the native Americans to name just two.
>
> --
be reading this exchange let me point out that the common beliefs that I
said are superior to others are those on which the bonds of friendship
depends, and no others. Atheists, in so far as they can consider themselves
united as a group (takes a bit of imagination), do believe that they should
judge people based on what they believe and not on their human qualities.
After all, what could be more inhuman than an atheist?
ernobe
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:27:36 -0600 wrote:
> >>
> >> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
> >> >existence,
> >>
> >> No, you don't inform, you assert. Baldly, one might add.
> >>
> >Assertions imply certainty. The fact that you assert the non-existence
of
> >God, does not mean that we should prove His existence by our own
assertion.
> >Logical evidence is required for a logical proof, but as there is no
logical
> >evidence for the belief in the non-existence of God, we therefore inform
you
> >of the self-evident realities you deny.
>
> Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief - and the burden of proof
> lays on the person making a positive claim - Saying "I don't believe
> in that" is not a positive claim, but just a lack of acceptance of a
> positive claim.
>
> --
and this means that they believe in lacking belief in God, because logical
evidences are such evidences as are believed in. This is a positive claim,
and if you lack acceptance of it, and refuse to accept proof for it, you are
no longer an atheist, though you may continue to call yourself one out of
spite.
Keith Doyle
Frank Wustner <see...@for.email.org> wrote:
>nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk wrote:
>> Peter Walker <p...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> That's the meaning of the word - belief in one or more deities.
>
>> >>Then would you conclude that Buddhism is not a theism?
>
>> >Once again, there are literally millions of deities in Buddhism. None
>> >with any significant cosmogenic or salvatory status, but the claim that
>> >there are no gods in Buddhism is rank ignorance.
>
>> Well thank you for telling me/us that. I sure didn't know! (Literally
>> speaking, no sarcasm or anything...).
>
>From what I understand, the above claim is true...BUT, belief in
>those deities is entirely optional. Maybe not optional for the
>individual worshipers, but certainly for the sects of Buddhism.
>
>So (assuming I'm correct), while there are gods in buddhism, the
>buddhist need not be a theist.
>
Perhaps the point was in fact, questioning whether or not all
religious are inherently theist. Depends on how you define
religion I suppose, which seemed to be what the original question
was getting at...
--
Keith Doyle <http://www.syncopator.com/carousel>
(to send me an E-letter, remove underbars in reply address)
"We must respect the other fellows religion, but only in the sense
and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is
beautiful and his children smart." H. L. Mencken
Ron Peterson
I don't feel comfortable categorizing myself on an idea I don't
consider important. I like the idea of secular humanism because
it is positive approach that all reasonable people can contribute
including both atheists and theists.
Ron
Keith Doyle
ernobe <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
>
>We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of theism?
>Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism? Wouldn't
>you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
"inform" is used pretty loosely here-- a possible source of reasoning
such as you describe. Why not simply ignore it? Politeness, perhaps...
--
Keith Doyle <http://www.syncopator.com/carousel>
(to send me an E-letter, remove underbars in reply address)
"The only things that need believing in are those that aren't there."
-Godrot
Ron Peterson
> Perhaps the point was in fact, questioning whether or not all
> religious are inherently theist. Depends on how you define
> religion I suppose, which seemed to be what the original question
> was getting at...
That was my intent. I feel for the definition of atheism to be
worthy of respect, it has to reject dogma of all sorts and not
just theism.
Ron
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee (chri...@sevenmil.com) wrote:
We don't categorise ourselves that way - it's simply a convenient
demographic label like apolitical, asymmetric etc that only has any
significance in the specific context of the absent property.
We're not identified by what we're not - not believing in somebody
else's deity is no different than not believing in Santa Claus. I am
identified by what I am, what I do etc: I cook, I model trains, I
hike, I like cats, classical music, ethnic food, wine and a whole slew
of other things.
That being said, atheists do however face certain issues living in a
predominantly theistic society where Santa Claus belief is the norm
and we are pariahs for not believing in Santa Claus, it is societally
acceptable for people practising their religion to waste our time
telling us that Santa Claus really loves us and wants us to believe in
him etc.
> Ron
>
>
Andrew Mulcahy
wrote:
>I don't feel comfortable categorizing myself on an idea I don't
>consider important. I like the idea of secular humanism because
>it is positive approach that all reasonable people can contribute
>including both atheists and theists.
Secular Humanism could include theists? Really?
Cheers,
Andy
* * * * * * * *
"The Scientific approach, then, is not merely
a matter of taste for Humanists,to be applied
or ignored at will. It is instead, integral..."
Dr. Pat Duffy Hutcheon
Frank Wustner
I have to disagree here. It might be true of individual atheists (I'm
not willing to debate *that* point right now), but you seem to be asking
that atheism in general be more complex than it really is. The lack of
god-belief need not necessarily come from reason or free thinking. To
demand that it is seems unreasonable to me.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|"Advice is a form of nostalgia. | Atheist #119 |
|Dispensing it means fishing the | Knight of BAAWA! |
|past from the disposal, wiping it |-----------------------------------|
|off, painting over the ugly parts, | Want to email me? Go to the URL |
|and recycling it for more than | above and email me from there. |
|it's worth." Mary Schmich |-----------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------|
cloidheamh
wrote:
[snip]
Is this intended to be a joke? [reformated for easier reading]
>Atheists assert that there is logical evidence for lacking belief in God,
Some atheists may make assertions, but atheism as a concept makes no
assertions whatsoever.
>and this means that they believe in lacking belief in God,
If you mean that atheists lack belief in god, then I agree. But for
some reason I don't think that is what you mean.
>because logical evidences are such evidences as are believed in.
Logical evidence is generally more believable than illogical evidence.
>This is a positive claim,
What claim? Your claim that 'Atheists assert that there is logical
evidence for lacking belief in God' ?
>and if you lack acceptance of it,
I do not accept that atheim makes the above assertion.
>and refuse to accept proof for it,
But if you can prove your assertion that it does, I will listen.
>you are no longer an atheist,
>though you may continue to call yourself one out of spite.
That was an extemely convoluted paragraph, and I may well have
misunderstood you. If so, then please rephrase it. Otherwise, I await
your proof.
cloidheamh
wrote:
>
>"MEow" <nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk> wrote in message
>news:fpjhct8u8otbosj8r...@4ax.com...
>> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
>> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:22:50 -0600 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A friend would show a willingness to respect a difference
>> >> of beliefs, a trait uncommon to theist. A threat comes from
>> >> a enemy not a friend.
>> >
>> >Freedom from common beliefs is freedom from friendship, and we do not
>wish
>> >to make friends with those who believe that respecting differences of
>belief
>> >is superior to respecting a common belief.
>>
>> So - you freely admit that you judge people based on what they believe
>> rather than on their human qualities and that you see tolerances as a
>> negative thing? Such thought is what spawned the crusades and the
>> killing of the native Americans to name just two.
>>
>> --
>I do not like repeating what I said, but for the benefit of others who might
>be reading this exchange let me point out that the common beliefs that I
>said are superior to others are those on which the bonds of friendship
>depends, and no others.
If your trying to say that friends share common ground, then I would
agree. If your saying that there may be no differences, then I
disagree.
>Atheists, in so far as they can consider themselves
>united as a group
The only thing which unites all atheists is a lack of belief in gods.
[juvenile insult snipped]
>do believe that they should judge people based on what they believe
> and not on their human qualities.
Atheism is not about passing judgement. If it appears otherwise to
you, it is probably because they are responding to your personality.
[another juvenile insult snipped]
Erin Cowan
ernobe wrote:
> "Erin Cowan" <ec...@muunm.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AC656B7...@muunm.edu...
> >
> >
> > ernobe wrote:
> >
> > > In order to point out the important ways in which any concept is
> incoherent
> > > or unintelligible requires that we first define that concept as far as
> > > intelligibility or coherence allows.
> >
> > Not true. By your standard nothing could be said to be incoherent because
> we
> > would first have to define it. But an incoherent thing often lacks a
> clear
> > definition to begin with. We simply say that concepts like god have no
> clear
> > referent. Since god has yet to be defined in any meaningful way it is
> pointless
> > to consider the concept further, until a clear definition can be
> formulated by
> > theists. Otherwise it is not even clear what it is we are trying to
> analyze.
> > Try reading Nielsen's, _Philosophy and Atheism_. I would be happy to
> discuss
> > any aspects of it.
> >
> > > Now humanity is conscious, beyond its
> > > own rational powers, of having been created along with objects that have
> not
> > > been the result of its own rational constructs.
> >
> > So you claim. I suspect that you are simply talking about mystic
> mumbo-jumbo.
> > You don't happen to have an example of such an object, aside from the
> incoherent
> > entity of god, do you?
> >
> > > Religions attempt to
> > > explain this concept as far as it is humanly possible.
> >
> > Which concept? The concept of creation or the concept of things beyond
> our own
> > rational powers? And as far as I can see religion does not attempt to
> explain
> > these concepts. It simply asserts that these things happened. End of
> story.
> >
> > > Atheism on the other
> > > hand implies that we reject all concepts that appear to us incoherent or
> > > unintelligible,
> >
> > Not at all. However, if nobody can state a concept in a way that is at
> all
> > intelligible then it cannot be further analyzed by logic or any other
> process.
> > In general atheists try not to deal in appearances. They often use
> science to
> > continually tests claims about knowledge in the physical world. They use
> logic
> > to test abstract types of knowledge or argumentation.
> >
> > > but then we would not have an intelligence superior to that
> > > of a cow. Nay,
> >
> > I believe it is moo, not nay and a cow probably is smarter than a theist
> to the
> > extent that a cow does not subvert its intellect by deceiving itself into
> > believing things for no other reason than fear or convenience.
> >
> > > the cows intelligence would then be superior, as it has no
> > > contact with abstract thought whatsoever.
> >
> > Abstraction has nothing to do with god. Abstraction is simply the ability
> to
> > represent a problem independently of specific details. That is what logic
> is
> > all about. Your recommendation that we try to analyse the unintelligible
> is not
> > abstract thinking. It is faulty mystical thinking.
> If you can't make a unified statement of what your objections are to my
> views,
I did provide a unified statement. You make this accusation all the time. All
I can conclude is that you cannot follow a simple, logical argument. I told you
that you were dead wrong that an incoherent concept needed to be pursued
further. The fact is that it is impossible to pursue an incoherent concept any
further. All current defintions of God are incoherent because they contain
unclear referents. Further, you claimed that the concept of God only appeared
to be incoherent. However, in order to substantiate this claim you would need
to be able to describe why god is a coherent concept. Until you can do this,
the demonstrations of god's incoherence stand.
> but must instead interpolate a confusing set of random
> misinterpretations into what I say, then who lacks the ability to 'represent
> a problem independently of specific details'? I do not recommend that you
> analyze the unintelligible, simply that you do not render what I say
> unintelligible through your own faulty mystical thinking.
It is pretty clear that you do not know what the word mystical means. And you
do a fine job of rendering your own writing unintelligible as well as
illogical. I have simply been trying to help you say something that makes sense
from time to time. But I probably shouldn't be wasting my time. You are
clearly so deluded with all your Bahai BS that you are unable to think in a
rational way.
> After all your
> analysis will you now claim that it is not even clear to you what
> intelligible things I gave you to analyze?
I analyzed what you gave me. I did not claim that anything you said rose to the
level of being truly intelligible. You simply piled on assertions and then
retreated to your fortress of unassailable ignorance. Safe behind your castle
walls, you were able to piously insist that you believe in god even though you
don't even know what the word god means.
> Will you claim that you have
> given me a coherent answer, thus deceiving yourself 'into believing things
> for no other reason than fear or convenience.'?
I am not deceiving myself and I will claim that I gave an unambiguous answer.
God is incoherent because it is not a clear referent to any object. As such,
discussing God as presently defined will only produce logical garbage. You need
to provide a clear defintion for god before it makes sense to discuss the matter
further.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>On the other hand if someone were to become convinced that there is no
>deity, that would make him a denier of those who are convinced that there is
>a deity, not a denier of the existence of the deity, because the deity
>speaks thru those who believe in him.
So all deities are real! What a bummer, since quite a few of them
say worship me or go to my hell, everyone is screwed.
--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - HP Lovecraft
Ron Peterson
> Secular Humanism could include theists? Really?
I don't see why not. Somehow, in practice, theists do seem to
resort to religious arguments.
Many biologists are religious, yet they are able to do research that
one would think would contradict their religion.
Ron
Ron Peterson
> ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) wrote:
> > That was my intent. I feel for the definition of atheism to be
> > worthy of respect, it has to reject dogma of all sorts and not
> > just theism.
> I have to disagree here. It might be true of individual atheists (I'm
> not willing to debate *that* point right now), but you seem to be asking
> that atheism in general be more complex than it really is. The lack of
> god-belief need not necessarily come from reason or free thinking. To
> demand that it is seems unreasonable to me.
What dogma can atheists accept at the same time rejecting deism while
maintaining a consistent philosophy?
I am not asking an atheist to have a complex philosophy, only a
consistent philosophy.
I don't know how one can conclude that there isn't a god by reason
or free thought. Theists probably have the right to call you a
bigot if you reject free thought.
Ron
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Frank Wustner (see...@for.email.org) wrote:
>> ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson) wrote:
>
>> > That was my intent. I feel for the definition of atheism to be
>> > worthy of respect, it has to reject dogma of all sorts and not
>> > just theism.
>
>> I have to disagree here. It might be true of individual atheists (I'm
>> not willing to debate *that* point right now), but you seem to be asking
>> that atheism in general be more complex than it really is. The lack of
>> god-belief need not necessarily come from reason or free thinking. To
>> demand that it is seems unreasonable to me.
>
>What dogma can atheists accept at the same time rejecting deism while
>maintaining a consistent philosophy?
>
>I am not asking an atheist to have a complex philosophy, only a
>consistent philosophy.
Why? How? As you should already know, that is impossible because it
is not a philosophy in itself but the simple absence of other peoples'
theistic philosophies. Which is pretty well all atheists have in
common - not being theist (clue: why are we decsribed as being
a-theist?). You will get as many philosophies as there are atheists
and none of these are required to be atheist (another clue: what does
the prefix a- mean?).
I've remarked this before and you haven't answered satisfactorily: you
are makeing strange demands for somebody who claims to be atheist. If
you were then you would know these for yourself already. And it's
usually theists who who are ignorant enough to want atheism to be more
than it actually is.
>I don't know how one can conclude that there isn't a god by reason
>or free thought. Theists probably have the right to call you a
>bigot if you reject free thought.
So what? That is a strawman. To most atheists, "God" is just something
theists believe. No differnt than Santa Claus - and what you are
saying is just plain ridiculous: "I don't know how one can conclude
that there isn't a Santa Claus by reason of rational thought".
>
> Ron
>
MEow
>>
>> Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief - and the burden of proof
>> lays on the person making a positive claim - Saying "I don't believe
>> in that" is not a positive claim, but just a lack of acceptance of a
>> positive claim.
>>
>>
>and this means that they believe in lacking belief in God, because logical
>evidences are such evidences as are believed in. This is a positive claim,
>and if you lack acceptance of it, and refuse to accept proof for it, you are
>no longer an atheist, though you may continue to call yourself one out of
>spite.
You don't know what atheism is and I was telling you, to be nice to
you - in case no one had told you before - But don't try to come here
and tell us what or who we are or what we believe. Understood?
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"Thaths just mentioned Nikitta as well... she's causing traffic without even
touching a computer." Bertram Bourdrez (afdaniain)
MEow
>>
>> So - you freely admit that you judge people based on what they believe
>> rather than on their human qualities and that you see tolerances as a
>> negative thing? Such thought is what spawned the crusades and the
>> killing of the native Americans to name just two.
>>
>>
>be reading this exchange let me point out that the common beliefs that I
>said are superior to others are those on which the bonds of friendship
>depends, and no others. Atheists, in so far as they can consider themselves
>united as a group (takes a bit of imagination), do believe that they should
>judge people based on what they believe and not on their human qualities.
>After all, what could be more inhuman than an atheist?
You just judged an entire demographic group based on their belief or
lack of same and you're calling me hateful? The irony makes the mind
boggle. You're the one who jug de people based on whether or not they
agree with your particular religion - you admitted so yourself - that
common belief to you is more important than friendship - What could be
more inhumane that disregard a someones qualities as a human and
judged them solemnly on whether they share your religion or not?
You're not being flamed for being a theist - You're being flamed for
being an obnoxious troll - we flam all trolls, regardless of their
stance. Nice theist OTOH are actually given the respect that they
deserve.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
"I personally wouldn't want to funt a dead chicken, or a live one,
because I'd be worried about strange diseases." Linz (Sheddie)
MEow
>> >>
>> >> Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make me
>> >> a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
>> >> they will have to become convinced that there is a deity -
>> >
>> >On the other hand if someone were to become convinced that there is no
>> >deity, that would make him a denier of those who are convinced that there
>is
>> >a deity, not a denier of the existence of the deity, because the deity
>> >speaks thru those who believe in him.
>>
>> That's what you believe that your god does - just because I don't
>> believe in what you claim that doesn't mean that I don't believe that
>> you exist. I could worship Winnie the Pooh if I wanted to and claim
>> that he speaks through me, but that wouldn't make me stop existing.
>
>But if you're an atheist it doesn't make any sense whether you're existing
>or not, because absolutely nothing speaks thru you.
It may make no sense in your world-picture, but it does to most
people. Not all people share your world-view and even if you do feel
that it makes things make more sense - that's no proof that it's true.
If I felt that believing in Winnie the Pooh would give things a
meaning it would still not make him exist.
--
Nikitta - Female with gender-ambigous name
Lifelong atheist #1759. EAC - Spanker of Theists
The Last Froupie That Saw The Matrix. AFV Bitchiness-Club
Skeptic
"Ron Peterson" <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote
Xaonon
<d...@home.com> wrote:
Seconded.
This reminds me of the time in chemistry class we did a lab in which we 'found'
the already well-known ratio of hydrogen of oxygen in water. I entitled my lab
report "Discovering the Obvious; Exploring the Known".
--
Xaonon, EAC Chief of Mad Scientists and informal BAAWA, aa #1821, Kibo #: 1
Visit The Nexus Of All Coolness (a.k.a. my site) at http://xaonon.cjb.net/
"I'm going to start walking around in my underwear from now on so that I
don't become a lesbian!" -- James "Kibo" Parry, in alt.religion.kibology
Ron Peterson
> "Ron Peterson" <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote
Thanks for the nomination, although the devil made me do it.
Some religious people, like Steve Allen, can be reasonable, and
so I hold on to some hope for others.
On the other hand, today, I walked by some Baptists from Kansas
demonstrating and preaching on a corner of the Wisconsin State
Capitol grounds on the evils of homosexuality.
Ron
Ron Peterson
> wrote:
> >I am not asking an atheist to have a complex philosophy, only a
> >consistent philosophy.
> Why? How? As you should already know, that is impossible because it
> is not a philosophy in itself but the simple absence of other peoples'
> theistic philosophies. Which is pretty well all atheists have in
> common - not being theist (clue: why are we decsribed as being
> a-theist?). You will get as many philosophies as there are atheists
> and none of these are required to be atheist (another clue: what does
> the prefix a- mean?).
I didn't say that atheism should be a consistent philosophy. I only
ask that people that call themselves atheists have a consistent
philosophy.
> I've remarked this before and you haven't answered satisfactorily: you
> are makeing strange demands for somebody who claims to be atheist. If
> you were then you would know these for yourself already. And it's
> usually theists who who are ignorant enough to want atheism to be more
> than it actually is.
I didn't claim to be an atheist. I only said that I wasn't a theist.
I agree atheism isn't a philosophy, it is only a label that people
attach to themselves.
> >I don't know how one can conclude that there isn't a god by reason
> >or free thought. Theists probably have the right to call you a
> >bigot if you reject free thought.
> So what? That is a strawman. To most atheists, "God" is just something
> theists believe. No differnt than Santa Claus - and what you are
> saying is just plain ridiculous: "I don't know how one can conclude
> that there isn't a Santa Claus by reason of rational thought".
Are you saying that the principle of free thought is wrong? (e.g.
some people have greater knowledge of the world than can be
obtained by science and reason)
Ron
chibiabos
<ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
> "chibiabos" <chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:020420011326015096%chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net...
> > In article <9aa32l$44dor$1...@ID-82761.news.dfncis.de>, ernobe
> > <ern...@costarricense.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that you should share my belief among yourselves does not imply
> > > that you know what the appropriate response to my belief is. However
> you
> > > already imagine that you do know what the approriate response is,
> therefore
> > > I do not inform you of my belief in order that you should share it, but
> to
> > > prove it to you so that you might want to share it. That is the
> rational
> > > thing to do. Stop imagining that you 'share' beliefs with atheists,
> you're
> > > all too busy dealing with your own confused understanding of theism to
> even
> > > be interested in understanding each other.
> >
> >
> > Forgive me. I've never seen you in alt.atheism before, so I don't mean
> > to be rude. Is English your first language? I'm having a great deal of
> > difficulty following your narrative.
> >
> > -chib
> >
> You don't mean to be rude, but I find it doubtful that my typing skills are
> that bad.
It wasn't your typing skills to which I referred. It was your grammar.
-chib
--
I'm counting on you lord, please don't let me down
Prove that you love me and buy the next round
--Janis Joplin, "Mercedes Benz"
Elf Sternberg
"ernobe" <ern...@costarricense.com> writes:
>Atheists, in so far as they can consider themselves united as a group
>(takes a bit of imagination), do believe that they should judge people
>based on what they believe and not on their human qualities. After
>all, what could be more inhuman than an atheist?
Let's see... arrogant, threatening, incoherent, irrational, and
insulting. Is this what comes from believing that God is on your side?
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Fast food restaurants are like gay bathhouses in San Francisco,
places where people go to engage in high-risk behaviors.
- Greg Critser
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>>> If we were to believe you then we would be "aware" of god.
>>> It would be very nice if we could afford to ignore you.
>>> Unfortunately you are a real danger to us and our freedom.
They don't seem to realise how they're perceived by those they do it
to, or from outside, or why people react they way they do.
>>> Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in
>>> mind,it may offer you a way to make him your friend. If not
>>> , you can kill him without hate-- and quickly.
>>>
>>> __Robert Heinlein
A good quote. But then extremists have never been able to see the
other guy's POV which doesn't matter to them anyway. Heinlein was good
at putting obvious points succinctly. One of my favourites is that one
man's religion is another man's belly laugh - it is as true of the
Christian's reaction to the Hindu's belief in reincarnation as the
atheists reaction the Christian'sbelief invirgin birthsm resurrection
etc.
>>> A friend would show a willingness to respect a difference
>>> of beliefs, a trait uncommon to theist. A threat comes from
>>> a enemy not a friend.
>>
>>Freedom from common beliefs is freedom from friendship,
>> and we do not wish to make friends with those who believe
>>that respecting differences of belief is superior to respecting
>> a common belief.
Bollocks. What people have in common is more important than what they
haven't. What they have in common is the basis for friendship. Is the
previous poster saying that he has nothing whatsoever in common with
people outside his religion? They don't breath, eat, have families to
feed and house, have the same concerns about paying the bills, etc?
They don't listen to music, play or watch sport? They don't have
similar hobbies? They don't have cats or dogs in their families?
> If I understand this, you are saying that you can not be
>a friend with some one that does not share your belief.
Which is pathetic. Several close friends of mine (including a Special
Lady) are devout Catholics. They don't care that my beliefs aren't the
same as theirs because we're friends because of the things we've got
in common and like doing together. Funnily enough one of their friends
(also a Catholic) couldn't understand why I hung out with Catholics. I
don't I hang out with people I like, some of whom happen to be
Catholic, some of whom happen to be Mormon, some Episcopal, some even
atheist.
Those who only hang out with people of the same religion because
thatis the most important thing in their life lose out when it becomes
more important than their relationships with wife, family etc. Which I
suspect is one reason the strongly religious have higher divorce rates
than atheists.
>And feel that, it`s not possible for a person to have the
>respect that is necessary for friendship, unless they share
>the same beliefs.
> Which means that you reject the offer of respect for your
>belief, and the friendship that can result from mutual
>respect. Instead demand that all people agree with you.
Tolerance doesn't mean accepting somebody else's position for
yourself. It means acknowledging that they have that position
and accepting that. The OCRT.ORG page describes this very well.
> Your stance, which I accept as being the stance of most
>christians, means that you consider me to be your enemy.
Most born agains, evangelicals, fundamentalists and charismatics (the
Catholic equivalent).
>And that the only way you will feel safe is if I am
>destroyed or accept your beliefs. I have no such feeling as
>to beliefs, I respect your right to believe any nonsense
>that makes you feel good.
As long as he doesn't try to enforce it on others. Evangelism and
prosetylising are by definition tautologically intolerance: it's
intolerance of other peoples beliefs, telling them that whatever they
believe is wrong because it's not what the prosetyliser believes. And
people react negatively to being on the reciebving end of it, a fact
which those doing it seem incapable of understanding.
> We are enemies, by your choice, not mine. Any attempt by
>you to force your beliefs on anyone will be met by the
>strongest force necessary to resist.
Exactly. I don't want to be anybody's enemy. But when they make me
their enemy I defend and fight harder than when somebody puts a gun in
my hand and tells me to attack somebody else.
> Good news is many christians, are beginning to accept,
>that others can be good friends, this split among your
>ranks, has hope that some day christians will be come
>civilized, since you pose little threat to me and I have
>hope that your kind will be curtailed by the more sensible
>christian, I do not see you as a real threat at this time,
>and therefore see no need to kill you.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A. Lee (chri...@sevenmil.com) wrote:
>> On 3 Apr 2001 09:01:16 -0500, ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson)
>> wrote:
>
>> >I am not asking an atheist to have a complex philosophy, only a
>> >consistent philosophy.
>
>> Why? How? As you should already know, that is impossible because it
>> is not a philosophy in itself but the simple absence of other peoples'
>> theistic philosophies. Which is pretty well all atheists have in
>> common - not being theist (clue: why are we decsribed as being
>> a-theist?). You will get as many philosophies as there are atheists
>> and none of these are required to be atheist (another clue: what does
>> the prefix a- mean?).
>
>I didn't say that atheism should be a consistent philosophy. I only
>ask that people that call themselves atheists have a consistent
>philosophy.
Which is impossible because atheist/atheism doesn't describe a
philosophy but the demographic absence of a specific one. Did you miss
that bit?
Why do you want atheist/atheism to mean something more than it
actually does?
What "consistent philosophy" do expect atheists to have? Please
acknowledge that all we have in common,is that we're not any kind of
theist.
A recent ex-theist might see it in terms of the god he used to
believe, until he realises that it is just one of hundreds of other
theisms he doesn't believe ineither. And even in those terms it's in
exactly the same vein as "there ain't no Santa Claus".
For some reason theists don't like their most cherished beliefs being
treated that way, and can't accept it. A lot of agnostics can't accept
that either. Certainly both mischaracterise us as though the theists
premises applied to us, wchich they don't.
>> I've remarked this before and you haven't answered satisfactorily: you
>> are makeing strange demands for somebody who claims to be atheist. If
>> you were then you would know these for yourself already. And it's
>> usually theists who who are ignorant enough to want atheism to be more
>> than it actually is.
>
>I didn't claim to be an atheist. I only said that I wasn't a theist.
Duh. Then you're atheist. Hint: the prefix "a-" shows the absence of
the prefixed property.
>I agree atheism isn't a philosophy, it is only a label that people
>attach to themselves.
No, they don't. It's a description - and one that has no significance
apart from in the specific context of the absent property (theism).
We're not even aware we're atheists most of the time - unless somebody
brings up theism. Having said that, we share certain common issues.
Ever tried to organise a non-religious funeral for a family member who
isn't theist? It's hard because the default assumptipon is that you
are Christian, and failing that Jewish. After that it gets difficult:
Hindus and Moslems have a similar problem. Official prayer, oaths etc
are similar issues.
We're not labelled or even described (most of the time) by what we're
not but by what we are. The only reason atheist/atheism becomes
important is that we live in an overwhelmingly Christian society where
you are expected to be Christian, and if not then some kind of theist.
>> >I don't know how one can conclude that there isn't a god by reason
>> >or free thought. Theists probably have the right to call you a
>> >bigot if you reject free thought.
>
>> So what? That is a strawman. To most atheists, "God" is just something
>> theists believe. No differnt than Santa Claus - and what you are
>> saying is just plain ridiculous: "I don't know how one can conclude
>> that there isn't a Santa Claus by reason of rational thought".
>
>Are you saying that the principle of free thought is wrong? (e.g.
>some people have greater knowledge of the world than can be
>obtained by science and reason)
Where did I say that? Clue: I didn't. I responded to two sentences of
yours. I answered "I don't know how one can conclude that there isn't
a god by reaon or free thought" with TO MOST ATHEISTS "GOD" IS JUST
SOMETHING THEISTS BELIEVE. NO DIFFERENT THAN SANTA CLAUS - AND WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING IS AS RIDICULOUS AS "I DON'T KNOW HOW ONE CAN CONCLUDE
THAT THERE ISN'T A SANTA CLAUS BY REASON OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. Both
Santa Claus and god are cultural phenomena, things certain people
believe, a definition in cultural or even anthropological terms.
You're seeing in the theists terms (and then saying you don't know)
and assuming everybody else sees it that way too, which we don't.
Your second sentence was: "Theists probably have the right to call you
a bigot if you reject free thought" to which I responded THAT IS A
STRAWMAN.
Please respond to these points instead of introducing yet another
strawman.
> Ron
ernobe
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:46:29 -0600 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make
me
> >> >> a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
> >> >> they will have to become convinced that there is a deity -
> >> >
> >> >On the other hand if someone were to become convinced that there is no
> >> >deity, that would make him a denier of those who are convinced that
there
> >is
> >> >a deity, not a denier of the existence of the deity, because the deity
> >> >speaks thru those who believe in him.
> >>
> >> That's what you believe that your god does - just because I don't
> >> believe in what you claim that doesn't mean that I don't believe that
> >> you exist. I could worship Winnie the Pooh if I wanted to and claim
> >> that he speaks through me, but that wouldn't make me stop existing.
> >
> >But if you're an atheist it doesn't make any sense whether you're
existing
> >or not, because absolutely nothing speaks thru you.
>
> It may make no sense in your world-picture, but it does to most
> people. Not all people share your world-view and even if you do feel
> that it makes things make more sense - that's no proof that it's true.
> If I felt that believing in Winnie the Pooh would give things a
> meaning it would still not make him exist.
>
The word atheism does not refer to any meaningful person or concept, and
your identification with it simply means that you have some sort of learning
disability.
--
ernobes' forum:
http://forum.asiaco.com/ernobe/
ernobe
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:56:03 -0600 wrote:
> >>
> >> So - you freely admit that you judge people based on what they believe
> >> rather than on their human qualities and that you see tolerances as a
> >> negative thing? Such thought is what spawned the crusades and the
> >> killing of the native Americans to name just two.
> >>
> >>
> >I do not like repeating what I said, but for the benefit of others who
might
> >be reading this exchange let me point out that the common beliefs that I
> >said are superior to others are those on which the bonds of friendship
> >depends, and no others. Atheists, in so far as they can consider
themselves
> >united as a group (takes a bit of imagination), do believe that they
should
> >judge people based on what they believe and not on their human qualities.
> >After all, what could be more inhuman than an atheist?
>
> You just judged an entire demographic group based on their belief or
> lack of same and you're calling me hateful? The irony makes the mind
> boggle. You're the one who jug de people based on whether or not they
> agree with your particular religion - you admitted so yourself - that
> common belief to you is more important than friendship -
That's a misreading of what I said.
> What could be
> more inhumane that disregard a someones qualities as a human and
> judged them solemnly on whether they share your religion or not?
> You're not being flamed for being a theist - You're being flamed for
> being an obnoxious troll - we flam all trolls, regardless of their
> stance. Nice theist OTOH are actually given the respect that they
> deserve.
>
--
ernobes' forum:
http://forum.asiaco.com/ernobe/
ernobe
> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:08:43 -0600 wrote:
> >>
> >> Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief - and the burden of proof
> >> lays on the person making a positive claim - Saying "I don't believe
> >> in that" is not a positive claim, but just a lack of acceptance of a
> >> positive claim.
> >>
> >>
> >Atheists assert that there is logical evidence for lacking belief in God,
> >and this means that they believe in lacking belief in God, because
logical
> >evidences are such evidences as are believed in. This is a positive
claim,
> >and if you lack acceptance of it, and refuse to accept proof for it, you
are
> >no longer an atheist, though you may continue to call yourself one out of
> >spite.
>
> You don't know what atheism is and I was telling you, to be nice to
> you - in case no one had told you before - But don't try to come here
> and tell us what or who we are or what we believe. Understood?
>
say that which I think is important. You're free to ask what you will. It
would be a different matter if I was a blabber-mouth in your backyard.
Skeptic
"Ron Peterson" <ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote in message
news:3aca303d$0$18887$272e...@news.execpc.com...
That isn't what free thought is. A freethinker is one who doubts or denies
religious dogma, who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of
authority. Thomas Huxley was one.
Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic', said that all that is
essential to agnosticism is pointing out that the theist is wrong if the
theist has no objective evidence that his proposition is known to be true.
Same goes for atheism, since atheism is simply the lack of any theist
beliefs.
Huxley dissin' Christianity in "Agnosticism and Christianity" :
<quote>
[Pointing out the principle] that it is wrong for a man [the Christian, in
this case, "Agnosticism and Christianity"] to say that he is certain of the
objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which
logically justifies that certainty. This is what Agnosticism asserts; and,
in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. -- Thomas Huxley,
"Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
</quote>
Huxley continues dissin' Christianity:
<quote>
The clerics and their lay allies commonly tell us, that if we refuse to
admit that there is good ground for expressing definite convictions about
certain topics, the bonds of human society will dissolve and mankind lapse
into savagery. There are several answers to this assertion. One is that the
bonds of human society were formed without the aid of their theology; and,
in the opinion of not a few competent judges, have been weakened rather than
strengthened by a good deal of it. Greek science, Greek art, the ethics of
old Israel, the social organisation of old Rome, contrived to come into
being, without the help of any one who believed in a single distinctive
article of the simplest of the Christian creeds. The science, the art, the
jurisprudence, the chief political and social theories, of the modern world
have grown out of those of Greece and Rome-not by favour of, but in the
teeth of, the fundamental teachings of early Christianity, to which science,
art, and any serious occupation with the things of this world, were alike
despicable. -- Thomas Huxley, "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1889.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
</quote>
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>
>"MEow" <nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk> wrote in message
>news:bgjhctgqcv7bk3tck...@4ax.com...
>> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
>> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:57:06 -0600 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >We do not say that you deny the existence of God, we inform you of His
>> >> >existence, so you no longer lack theism. Do you prefer lack of
>theism?
>> >> >Then why do you respond to our critiques for your lack of theism?
>> >Wouldn't
>> >> >you simply ignore us as fellows who have a reasoning problem?
>> >>
>> >> Nope - Someone telling me about his or her deity/ies does not make me
>> >> a theist - it does not convince me. For someone to become a theist,
>> >> they will have to become convinced that there is a deity -
>> >
>> >On the other hand if someone were to become convinced that there is no
>> >deity, that would make him a denier of those who are convinced that there
>is
>> >a deity, not a denier of the existence of the deity, because the deity
>> >speaks thru those who believe in him.
>>
>> That's what you believe that your god does - just because I don't
>> believe in what you claim that doesn't mean that I don't believe that
>> you exist. I could worship Winnie the Pooh if I wanted to and claim
>> that he speaks through me, but that wouldn't make me stop existing.
>
>But if you're an atheist it doesn't make any sense whether you're existing
>or not, because absolutely nothing speaks thru you.
We are quite capable of speaking for ourselves, thank you.
Dave
--
From the warped mind of Dave Holloway, #1184
Quotemeister; DDS, EAC Mars Division; Disgruntled Merkin
Finally updated: http://thinking.welcome.to
Dave Holloway
wrote:
>
>"MEow" <nik...@wanadoo.spammustdie.dk> wrote in message
>news:fpjhct8u8otbosj8r...@4ax.com...
>> The alien which happened to be occupying the body of "ernobe"
>> <ern...@costarricense.com> on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:22:50 -0600 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A friend would show a willingness to respect a difference
>> >> of beliefs, a trait uncommon to theist. A threat comes from
>> >> a enemy not a friend.
>> >
>> >Freedom from common beliefs is freedom from friendship, and we do not
>wish
>> >to make friends with those who believe that respecting differences of
>belief
>> >is superior to respecting a common belief.
>>
>> So - you freely admit that you judge people based on what they believe
>> rather than on their human qualities and that you see tolerances as a
>> negative thing? Such thought is what spawned the crusades and the
>> killing of the native Americans to name just two.
>>
>> --
>I do not like repeating what I said, but for the benefit of others who might
>be reading this exchange let me point out that the common beliefs that I
>said are superior to others are those on which the bonds of friendship
>depends, and no others. Atheists, in so far as they can consider themselves
>united as a group (takes a bit of imagination), do believe that they should
>judge people based on what they believe and not on their human qualities.
>After all, what could be more inhuman than an atheist?
I am engaged to a Christian. Draw your own conclusions.
Frank Wustner
> What dogma can atheists accept at the same time rejecting deism while
> maintaining a consistent philosophy?
> I am not asking an atheist to have a complex philosophy, only a
> consistent philosophy.
I strongly doubt you have ever known *anyone*, atheist or no, with a
totally consistent philosophy. Besides, as I've said before, atheists
need not be either rational or consistent to remain atheists.
> I don't know how one can conclude that there isn't a god by reason
> or free thought. Theists probably have the right to call you a
> bigot if you reject free thought.
Uh, what are you trying to say here?
Ron Peterson
> On 3 Apr 2001 15:19:09 -0500, ro...@earth.execpc.com (Ron Peterson)
> wrote:
> >> >I am not asking an atheist to have a complex philosophy, only a
> >> >consistent philosophy.
> >I didn't say that atheism should be a consistent philosophy. I only
> >ask that people that call themselves atheists have a consistent
> >philosophy.
> Which is impossible because atheist/atheism doesn't describe a
> philosophy but the demographic absence of a specific one. Did you miss
> that bit?
I am not asking atheists as a group to have a consistent philosophy,
I am just asking each individual atheist to have a consistent
philosophy.
> A recent ex-theist might see it in terms of the god he used to
> believe, until he realises that it is just one of hundreds of other
> theisms he doesn't believe ineither. And even in those terms it's in
> exactly the same vein as "there ain't no Santa Claus".
Precisely. And all I am asking is to have other dogmas put in the
same class as theisms.
> We're not labelled or even described (most of the time) by what we're
> not but by what we are. The only reason atheist/atheism becomes
> important is that we live in an overwhelmingly Christian society where
> you are expected to be Christian, and if not then some kind of theist.
Why don't atheists just pretend to be Christian or theists?
Ron
Samael
I for one would not like to be a hypocrite. I will not pretend to believe
something that I do not. In other words, I will stand up for what I DON'T
believe in.
You take your right to express your Christianity for granted. If in
conversation someone mentions that they are Christian, that's ok. It's even
OK if they mention that they are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu. Why is
it so unusual for someone to express that they are an atheist?
How would you like to live in a society where you had to pretend you were of
a faith that you were not? Would you like to be a Jew in Nazi Germany? And
if you lived your faith in secret, what misconceptions would abound about
your beliefs?
Back in the early days of Christianity, the early Christians had that very
situation. It had been outlawed in the 2nd Century BC to meet in secret,
because at that time, the Roman Republic felt threatened by the growing Cult
of Bacchus. Because the early Christian church did not believe in having
temples of their own, they were labeled atheists themselves (which
incidentally, was a crime in Rome), so they HAD to meet in secret at night.
This led to a huge number of misconceptions of early Christianity. Since
the common Greeks and Romans misunderstood the sacraments (wine and bread)
they accused the early Christians of cannibalism. Because at the time the
Christians called each other "brother" and "sister", even spouses, they were
accused of incestuous orgies. Because they would not offer wine to Caesar,
they were accused of sedition. Now most of these crimes were the result of
misunderstanding caused by the fact that they were not allowed to worship
openly until the 4th Century. By the way, if you would like to read more
about this, there was a scathing document published by a Greek philosopher
Celsus. His claims were refuted in a later pamphlet by the martyr Origen
(d. 165) in "Contra Celsus". You should be able to find it on the web if
you look.
I hope you see my point. To force atheists to live in secret would make
sure that all non-atheists would think that we were salivating godless
demon-possessed beings intent on violating all principles of goodness. That
simply isn't true. I'm a perfectly productive member of society -- I'm
honest, I try to be sincere and kind, and I don't have any vices -- but I am
an atheist. And I publicize the fact that I am an atheist, so Christians
will not feel that all atheists are evil. Heck, I even give to the
Salvation Army (out of every check) not because I believe in their doctrine,
but I recognize the world of good such an organization does for those less
fortunate and sadly such an organiation does not exist on a non-faith basis.
(One note, if you're going to use that statement as a thread on how atheists
don't have charitable organizations, please first consider YOUR charitable
contributions and the sad financial state organizations like the Salvation
Army are in; obviously not all Christians contribute as generously as this
atheist does :).
Samael
apa...@trout.vub.ac.be
>I don't know how one can conclude that there isn't a god by reason
>or free thought.
First of all most atheists don't conclude this. They just don't
conclude there is a god.
Second what kind of criteria do you have in order to conclude
something doesn't exist? Each time this comes up I have come to
conclusion that some double standard is at work. Each time the
existance of gods is the subject the criterium for concluding
something doesn't exists borders on having a mathematical proof
for the non-existance. It is true that such a proof will never
come but it is also true that in general we don't expect such a
proof in order to conclude something doesn't exist.
Consider the possibilty of children having imaginary friends. Do
you know how to conclude that there isn't a real friend by reason
of free thought. If you do, I would say you know how to conclude
there isn't a god.
--
Antoon Pardon
Peter Walker
<ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
>Frank Wustner (see...@for.email.org) wrote:
>
>> I have to disagree here. It might be true of individual atheists (I'm
>> not willing to debate *that* point right now), but you seem to be asking
>> that atheism in general be more complex than it really is. The lack of
>> god-belief need not necessarily come from reason or free thinking. To
>> demand that it is seems unreasonable to me.
>
>What dogma can atheists accept at the same time rejecting deism while
>maintaining a consistent philosophy?
Communism, for starters.
Being an atheist doesn't mean being free of dogma; only theistic dogma.
--
Peter Wykoff Walker II | WWW: http://spacsun.rice.edu/~pww
BAAWA Master Squire | alt.atheist #3 (Oldtimer Division)
--------- QUI NOS RODUNT CONFUNDANTUR ET CUM IUSTIS NON SCRIBANTUR ---------
Peter Walker
<ro...@earth.execpc.com> wrote:
I imagine there are an awful lot who do (and have seen anecdotally
several of this sort) - but the desire to fit in and not make waves
does not make one not an atheist.
Personally, I don't pretend because I refuse to be intimidated: a
character trait that has nothing to do with atheism.