LOOKING FOR ADVICE FROM NONJUDGMENTAL ATHEISTS

[Madame Monpetit]

Hi there,

I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
being posed here. So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
crank, weirdo, ect." then please don't bother replying. I consider
myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the mental scars
left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
vibes, bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds
insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
activity in their homes, ect.

Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
home?.

Thank you!

Madame Monpetit

[SkyEyes]

I am an atheist who also grew up christian fundamentalist, so I know
where you're coming from.

Here's the thing about being afraid of ghosts, spirits, demons, etc.:
like gods, they don't exist. Don't judge reality by what you see on
TV - remember, they're producing programs to sell to the public, and
those programs are the products of special effects and exaggeration.
If you want your gizmo that you saw on E-Bay, buy it and enjoy it.
There won't be any supernatural forces attached to it.

How do I know there's no such thing as ghosts, spirits, demons, etc.?
The same reason that I don't believe any god exists: there's no
logical, objective, verifiable evidence that any such things exist.
When put to scientific test - not what's seen on TV, but tests by REAL
scientists - nothing is ever shown to exist. Learn to incorporate
that into your atheism and you'll be a much happier person.

Learn not to confuse TV with reality. They're not the same thing.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Madame Monpetit <madamem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
> being posed here.

Not if they're reasonable questions, and not a thin disguise for proseletyzing.

<snip>

> I consider
> myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the mental scars
> left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> upbringing.

OK.

> So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
> eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
> and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
> laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
> could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
> vibes, bad energy, ect.

Although I suppose it's POSSIBLE to be an "atheist" and still believe in evil
spirits, negative vibes, bad energy, and other such woo, it seems highly
doubtful.

If you don't believe in a God, why do you believe in these things?

Ceramic's just fancy clay.

The bigger question is: why buy something which you'll later on have to either
give away, will break, or your heirs will need to dispose of? Unless you NEED
it for some reason, why not save the money for something more fulfilling; like
travel, or charities?

> Yes, I know it sounds
> insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
> objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
> have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
> activity in their homes, ect.

Again, if you don't believe in a God, why the heck would you believe in any of
that malarkey? When you see that Gods are just made-up fantasy, evil spirits,
haunted houses, etc, should go out the window at the same time.

> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> home?.

Sure. Either buy the thing if you really want to, safe in the knowledge that
there's no mystikal-majical powers in it, or even better, put the money in your
piggy bank, and in a few years, go on a nice trip somewhere.

--
__ _ | Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time.
(_ |_) | -- Edwin P. Whipple
__)|_) |

[raven1]

Watch a few episodes of "Scooby Doo, Where Are You?". It's always the
caretaker at the end when they pull the mask off, because there's no
such thing as ghosts.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0800 (PST)

Madame Monpetit <madamem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi there,

Hello. In reading your subject line and the very first thing that comes
to mind for me is that being judgemental is in fact a very important
part of exercising free will. What's key is the appropriateness of
judgements being made with respect to one's intentions, and whether
those intentions may impact being a productive member of a society, etc.

> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
> being posed here. So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
> crank, weirdo, ect." then please don't bother replying.

That doesn't seem to be unreasonable, but do keep in mind that this
"alt.atheism" newsgroup is unmoderated. Of course, posting in the
"alt.atheism.moderated" newsgroup may also be worthy of consideration
since its discourse is generally more serious and peaceful.

> I consider myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the
> mental scars left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
> eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
> and has had a few owners. I know this sounds laughable and
> ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item could be
> "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative vibes,
> bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds insane, but I have watched
> many documentaries about second hand objects which people have bought
> at garage sales and stuff, and who have claimed that after obtaining
> them, they experienced paranormal activity in their homes, ect.

I don't see any reason to laugh at someone who is feeling distressed
about something. To me, it's a matter of using knowledge, or some other
means, to rationally cope with the given challenge(s).

Child psychology can get quite complicated, and if you are taking the
paranormal seriously despite an absence of belief in deities, then you
are heading in the right direction to reverting to atheism:

Atheism: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheism.pl

In your case I'd consider you to be trying to eliminate something akin
to a habit, which can be a challenge when it has been carried forward
from being implanted during the distant childhood years. In other
words, "you're used to it, and you feel like you're betraying yourself."

It's not betrayal though, it's personal growth with an emphasis on the
adaptation of your own character. It's your character, after all, so
why shouldn't you customize it in accordance to your own desires?

One of the tendancies that many people have is to favour what is
familiar (and this phenomenon can be seen in battered men and women who
often return to, or seek out new, abusive relationships) -- there is an
adversity to risk in your personality that is making it difficult for
you to abandon what is familiar, and it can seem quite rational because
you have been accomodating it for so long.

It's particularly difficult when it is so personalized, which comes so
easily with ideas that are implanted and nurtured throughout childhood
where the desire to please role models is so much more intense than
when we're older, by which time the various levels of subconscious
thinking have been [metaphorically] shaped and molded by what has been
faithfully believed for such a long time.

I have included, below my signature, a quotation for you to study which
will hopefully be helpful with your transition back to atheism (see more
about this in my final paragraph); the underlying message, of course, is
to question everything and embrace your true nature, whatever you
determine and/or shape it to be, for freedom is your greatest ally.

One more things: Do not avoid fear, embrace it, for it is your very
best friend that will prove instrumental to your longevity (if it hasn't
already done so), for it has an acutely vested intrest in you staying
alive (which includes good mental health).

> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> home?.

Do keep in mind that you were an atheist at birth, and then converted
to theism only after you could conceptualize the ideas you were
required to believe in to be a theist. I have not have the pleasure to
revert to atheism as you are doing now, for I have never been a theist,
but I thank you as I am delighted that you are sharing this important
part of your life experience publicly.

> Thank you!
>
> Madame Monpetit

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the transcendent and
all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust
compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to
be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were
mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out
argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply
plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all
excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others
to live for you."
-- Christopher Hitchens

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Ha ha! That's wonderful, but I advocate only for the original series
because that later productions veered away from rationality and started
making the characters act hostile toward one another. It was quite
disappointing actually.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts
requite; But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with
falsehood meet."
-- The Poetic Edda

[%]

sbalneav wrote:
> In alt.atheism Madame Monpetit <madamem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
>> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
>> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
>> being posed here.
>
> Not if they're reasonable questions, and not a thin disguise for
> proseletyzing.
>

do all atheists have big noses

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <kfp327$fh9$1...@dont-email.me>, sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net>
wrote:

Or ceramic that you can cook with?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Ben Kaufman]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0800 (PST), Madame Monpetit
<madamem...@gmail.com> wrote:

Those documentaries are mostly hoaxes. The paranormal activity never happens
when there is a bonafide scientist conducting the research.

Ben

[Clocky]

Madame Monpetit wrote:
> Hi there,

<snip>

> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> home?.
>

I was brought up as a fundamentalist or anything even close to that but I
was subjected to the usual brainwashing that is attempted on children at
school so I kinda get what you are saying.

Think of it this way, your object does not come with baggage. Any baggage
that is attached to an object is by the observer themselves. TV programs and
such are designed to entertain the audience and people who believe in such
things are attracted to more of the same to confirm their beliefs.

Just accept that it is all nonsense, buy the item, enjoy it.

Prove to yourself that you can heal these scars!

[Father Haskell]

You bought an Elvis decanter? You can release any spirits
inhabiting it by simply screwing off its head (and kicking
back a few shots). What brand is your lucky find?

[Dakota]

You got here just in time. The knickknack is indeed possessed. In fact
it compelled you to visit this newsgroup and ask for advice. Before
that, the demon inhabiting the glossy gimcrack ordained that you would
seek it out on eBay. You are in serious peril. There is only one way
for you to escape the clutches of this evil spirit. Sell everything
you own and donate the proceeds at the following link.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/donations/new

Only then will you be able to

Have a nice day.

[Dakota]

Well done, raven1. Scooby Doo is Mythbusters for kids.

[Dakota]

While it's nice to see so many demonstrations of the kindler, gentler
side of the atheists here at a.a, I'm disappointed that so many took
this obvious spoof as a genuine appeal. Poe was right.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Oh Father Haskell, you put all of us atheists to shame by providing the
most rational answer based in practicality.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Religion endangers us all."
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason (June 6, 2012)

[felix_unger]

How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim, visit
their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or visions,
etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law enforcement
authorities?

>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.truthbeknown.com/

[felix_unger]

Personally I don't believe this Monpetit person is genuine. I think he
or she is just having fun with you (atheists). It wouldn't surprise me
in the least if it's the person who posts to aus.tv as 'coach', and
previously did as 'Soixante Une Vieilles Viandes De Jour', and also uses
various other identities, and posts from France with the email
suv...@yahoo.fr . The fact that he/she (I believe he) uses a French
nickname in this posting, and the writing style, makes me suspicious
it's the same person. However, having said that, even these troll posts
can branch off into discussion of interesting topics.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
I was once arguing with an atheist who chastised me for not
adopting a position on the existence of God. I challenged him with..
"I'll take a position when you can tell me why I have to". He never replied.

[felix_unger]

On 17-February-2013 9:34 AM, Madame Monpetit wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
> being posed here.

really???

> So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
> crank, weirdo, ect."

of just tell me to f*ck off..

> then please don't bother replying. I consider
> myself to be an Atheist,

my condolences

> but I still struggle with the mental scars
> left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
> eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
> and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
> laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
> could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
> vibes, bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds
> insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
> objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
> have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
> activity in their homes, ect.
>
> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> home?.
>
> Thank you!

De rien. Bonne Journee!

>
> Madame Monpetit



--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

“This election is about trust. The choice before the Australian people could not be clearer. It’s more tax or less. It’s more regulation or less. It’s less competence or more. It’s less freedom or more” - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader

Sept 14th. is National Rubbish Collection day.. ausnet.info/pics/rubbish_collection.jpg

http://www.facebook.com/SupportTonyAbbott

[felix_unger]

only if they're Jewish :)

[SkyEyes]

Cite, please? List, let's say, five cases where psychics have solved
crimes. Put them here:

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

[felix_unger]

I'm not aware of any specific cases, only what is said generally, and I
certainly don't intend spending time looking to satisfy your demands. It
you don't believe it's possible, why not just say so?

>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *

I do pity you and your ilk. you believe there is nothing mankind has yet
to learn, or does not yet understand or know. there are no forces in the
universe unknown to us. That is the atheist position, right? Consider
perhaps, what someone living in the 13th. Century would make of a
computer, if it were possible for them to see one. It would be
completely beyond their comprehension. In one, two, or however many more
centuries from now, we will look as ignorant to people living then as
persons from the middle ages now appear to us.- providing mankind has
not annihilated itself in the meantime.

> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <aobkgo...@mid.individual.net>,

Huh? That's what science is....

> or does not yet understand or know. there are no forces in the
> universe unknown to us.

Of course we know there are things we don't know yet. That's why science
is so important; it's our only way of finding the answers to those
unknown things.

> That is the atheist position, right? Consider
> perhaps, what someone living in the 13th. Century would make of a
> computer, if it were possible for them to see one. It would be
> completely beyond their comprehension. In one, two, or however many more
> centuries from now, we will look as ignorant to people living then as
> persons from the middle ages now appear to us.- providing mankind has
> not annihilated itself in the meantime.

I don't understand what you're complaining about. You're not going to be
around when these advanced creatures live so what difference does it
make.

Anyone who understands even the basics of science knows how much further
science will take us in the next centuries. Because we are applying the
scientific method and using actual data as our evidence.

It sounds like you want to freeze knowledge to what we know now so we
don't have to think about people having a better life than ours. Please
tell me that that is not what you want.

Oh, wait, you think badly of the people who lived 800 years ago because
they didn't know what we know. You think that makes them inferior people
and you're afraid of people thinking you an inferior ignorant savage in
the future.

People in the past had exactly the same brain power as people today.
It's not their fault that there wasn't enough cumulative knowledge yet
to do the things we did. But ancient Greeks had a working computer, an
analog computer, which they calculated astronomical positions on.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism>

[felix_unger]

you've completely misunderstood what I've said

>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism>

[Clocky]

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if the post is genuine or not
really, the responses are positive.

[Devils Advocaat]

I'm neither theist nor atheist.

But I will offer my advice.

If the item makes you feel uncomfortable.

The solution is simple.

Don't buy it.

[Dakota]

To me, it seems impossible to be neither theist nor atheist? How do
you define those terms?

[A B]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote on 17th February:

I'd assume that Devils Advocaat (good name!) is using "atheist" in the sense
of someone who believes that there is NO god, and saying that he has no
strong opinion either way. I know some of you use "atheist" to mean anyone
who doesn't definitely believe in any god; but round here, "atheist" is
someone who definitely believes there is no god, and someone who isn't sure
either way is "agnostic". Annoying, that.

Disagree with original statement, though. As someone with a lot of friends
with OCD and phobias, my reflex reaction would be, if it makes you
uncomfortable for reasons you don't even believe in (and you actually want
it anyway), buy it and get to like it - it's time you got over that one.

Am Christian myself, and inclined to believe in paranormal (well, SOME
things - I'm also inclined to be beady-eyed about evidence), but would never
have thought of worrying about that. We have loads of second-hand stuff at
home, none of it has ever shown slightest sign of being haunted.

Cheers,
--
A. B.
><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[Dakota]

Where is 'round here' for you? It certainly can't be alt.atheism. The
vast majority of us here accept the definition of 'atheist' implied by
its etymology.

Theist - someone who believes in a god

Atheist - someone who is not a theist.

[Uncle Vic]

Madame Monpetit <madamem...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3be3dbcc-a34b-
4ad5-bb7a-c...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> Hi there,
>
> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
> being posed here. So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
> crank, weirdo, ect." then please don't bother replying. I consider
> myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the mental scars
> left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
> eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
> and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
> laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
> could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
> vibes, bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds
> insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
> objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
> have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
> activity in their homes, ect.
>
> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> home?.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Madame Monpetit
>

It doesn't sound insane. It isn't insane until you let it control you.

Just ask yourself a few simple questions. Where does the ghost stay in a
1960s ceramic statue? You'll find yourself invoking more magic to
explain the first magic. It's like a lie, where another lie is necessary
to support the first lie, and so on.

I'd say get it. Then put it someplace prominent and watch it every
chance you get. Kind of like therapy, eh?

There's an answer to everything. My brother has two instances where he
initially though a ghost was involved. Because he had no other
explanation. Notice the similarity to religion?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
The meaning of life is to find your gift.
The purpose of life is to give it away.

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Uncle Vic]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobaoqF37b8U1
@mid.individual.net:

> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim, visit
> their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or visions,
> etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law enforcement
> authorities?

Complete frauds. Maybe one or two helped to solve a case. Oops. Lucky
guess. The rest is showbiz.

[Uncle Vic]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobkgoF5515U1
@mid.individual.net:

> I do pity you and your ilk. you believe there is nothing mankind has yet
> to learn, or does not yet understand or know. there are no forces in the
> universe unknown to us. That is the atheist position, right?

No, where did you get that idea? You're confusing us with theists.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Madame Monpetit
<madamem...@gmail.com>:

>Hi there,
>
>I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
>many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
>judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
>being posed here. So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
>crank, weirdo, ect." then please don't bother replying. I consider
>myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the mental scars
>left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
>upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
>eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
>and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
>laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
>could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
>vibes, bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds
>insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
>objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
>have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
>activity in their homes, ect.
>
>Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
>who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
>of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
>home?.

Since you lacked the courtesy to respond to the several
thoughtful replies to your previous post regarding incest,
I'll pass on this one.

>Thank you!

You're welcome.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

That's right, and the etymology is explained here on this web page:

Atheism: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/atheism.pl

> Theist - someone who believes in a god
>
> Atheist - someone who is not a theist.

What the poster seems to be missing is the distinction between atheism
and anti-theism, which I find is fairly common among religious
right-wing-nuts, or those who have been misinformed or not interested
in basic English, so I'm suggesting one more item for your list:

Anti-theist - someone who opposes belief in god (and/or other deities)

> > Disagree with original statement, though. As someone with a lot of
> > friends with OCD and phobias, my reflex reaction would be, if it
> > makes you uncomfortable for reasons you don't even believe in (and
> > you actually want it anyway), buy it and get to like it - it's time
> > you got over that one.
> >
> > Am Christian myself, and inclined to believe in paranormal (well,
> > SOME things - I'm also inclined to be beady-eyed about evidence),
> > but would never have thought of worrying about that. We have loads
> > of second-hand stuff at home, none of it has ever shown slightest
> > sign of being haunted.
> >
> > Cheers,
>

Admitting to being a "Christian inclined to be beady-eyed [having eyes
that gleam with malice] about evidence" as if it's something to be
proud of? That impresses me as being somewhat sociopathic (or at least
laying the foundation for being sociopathic).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Children who are taught that violence is the way to solve problems are
far more likely to be scoundrels."
-- Jeanne Douglas (October 12, 2012)

[kni...@baawa.com]

Nice Troll. I liked the part when you say to be nice to you and
especially all the suckers that 'are' nice to you.

I give it a solid 8. Get rid of your spell checker and I'll give
you a 9.

Warlord Steve
BAAWA

[MarkA]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0800, Madame Monpetit wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that many
> atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory, judgemental,
> defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions being posed here.
> So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool, crank, weirdo, ect." then
> please don't bother replying. I consider myself to be an Atheist, but I
> still struggle with the mental scars left by my Evangelical Christian
> Fundamentalist upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic
> statue from eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but
> quite old and has had a few owners. I know this sounds laughable and
> ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item could be "haunted"
> or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative vibes, bad energy, ect.
> Yes, I know it sounds insane, but I have watched many documentaries about
> second hand objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff,
> and who have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced
> paranormal activity in their homes, ect.
>
> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone who's fears
> are informed by childhood mental scars as the result of growing up in an
> Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist home?.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Madame Monpetit

You claim that you are an atheist, so you don't believe in God. Yet, you
believe in "spirits". It seems that you have some inconsistencies
in your belief system that need to be addressed.

Meanwhile, if you believe it is possible for a lump of shaped, painted
ceramic to be "haunted", why don't you ask the seller? If you're worried,
don't buy it. You can still have a full and meaningful life, even without
the figurine.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[george152]

On 17/02/13 19:13, felix_unger wrote:

> How do you explain psychics who work with police,

There is no such.
Every time this claim is made the police deny it and the vague claims
made by so-called psychics never produce a result.
One claim had the body many miles away in the opposite direction to
where it was found.
www.stopsylvia.com would be a good place to see how a socalled psychic
has attempted to operate

[Devils Advocaat]

If theism and atheism were truly two sides of the one coin I'd agree
with you that it would be impossible to neither one nor the other.

But the world isn't always divided in to opposites in that way.

For me an atheist is someone who is certain about the non-existence of
any deity.

And a theist is someone who is certain about the existence of their
chosen deity or deities.

I have no certainty one way or the other, which most people would
label as being agnostic.

I go where the evidence leads me, and that includes personal and
subjective experiences.

Which makes me a pragmatist.

So far no evidence confirms the existence of any deity or deities.

But not being in possession of all the evidence I cannot confirm their
non-existence either.

So I'm basically a pragmatic agnostic.

I hope that clears it up for you, you are welcome to disagree, but
that's how I handle the world as I find it.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Indeed. In this instance the question, prejudices aside, was an
interesting one that garnered some great answers (although I'm still
particularly fond of Father Haskell's response).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Beauty is a short-lived tyranny."
-- Socrates of Athens

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Ha ha! You've been watching police dramas on television, haven't you?

Those claims are actually fallacious ad hominem attacks on the police
that are really attempts to discredit them by falsely claiming that
police are so incompetent that they have to rely on superstitious
nonsense and wild guesses to solve cases, instead of L.O.V.E. (Logical,
Objective, Verifiable Evidence), hard work, and statistical probability.

L.O.V.E.: http://www.atheistfrontier.com/glossary/love.pl

Criminal investigations aren't usually complicated -- the police speak
to a number of suspects while collecting evidence, and then use the
process of elimination to narrow down the number of suspects. More
often than not the real perpetrator admits to what they've done, but
then the hard part is in court where tricky lawyers can sometimes turn a
whole case around which is one reason why evidence must be reliable and
bolster the credibility of theories and charges.

Most importantly, justice must be fair because peoples' lives are
potentially at risk (prison isn't a safe place to live), and if the
theories and evidence can be refuted then it is an injustice to judge
the accused as guilty based on it. Psychics providing witness
testimony would be akin to taking society back to the witch hunting era.

The word of a psychic does not stand up in court because it is
correctly classified as conjecture unless there are facts supporting
the psychic's ideas (in which case the psychic would most likely a
non-psychic witness, a suspect, or have merely provided an alternate
"wild guess" that coincidentally matched reality; most of the time the
guesses are wrong, and so police generally don't waste valuable time
with such nonsense, but the media seem to have very little interest in
disproving psychics).

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Let's go back to that word, innocent. Are you so white and pure?"
-- Charles Milles Manson

[felix_unger]

So why do you change the meaning? If you define Theist (correctly, I
might add) as "someone who believes in a god" why then is atheist not
"someone who doesn't believe in a god" ?

>>
>> Disagree with original statement, though. As someone with a lot of
>> friends with OCD and phobias, my reflex reaction would be, if it makes
>> you uncomfortable for reasons you don't even believe in (and you
>> actually want it anyway), buy it and get to like it - it's time you
>> got over that one.
>>
>> Am Christian myself, and inclined to believe in paranormal (well, SOME
>> things - I'm also inclined to be beady-eyed about evidence), but would
>> never have thought of worrying about that. We have loads of
>> second-hand stuff at home, none of it has ever shown slightest sign of
>> being haunted.
>>
>> Cheers,
>

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rub�iy�t of Omar Khayy�m

[felix_unger]

On 18-February-2013 4:51 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist

he simply meant that he is critical of evidence. Atheists always seem to
want to impart sinister or malicious motives to ppl. that's been my
experience with you (and others) anyway

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

�This election is about trust. The choice before the Australian people could not be clearer. It�s more tax or less. It�s more regulation or less. It�s less competence or more. It�s less freedom or more� - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader

[felix_unger]

well said, except that they're both about belief, not certainty.
although some ppl claim to be certain that what they believe is true,
especially religious ppl.

>
> I have no certainty one way or the other, which most people would
> label as being agnostic.
>
> I go where the evidence leads me, and that includes personal and
> subjective experiences.
>
> Which makes me a pragmatist.
>
> So far no evidence confirms the existence of any deity or deities.
>
> But not being in possession of all the evidence I cannot confirm their
> non-existence either.
>
> So I'm basically a pragmatic agnostic.

the best position! :) It's unwise to claim knowledge about what cannot
be proven IMO

>
> I hope that clears it up for you, you are welcome to disagree, but
> that's how I handle the world as I find it.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
�I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to�

�Some atheists are silly enough to argue that non-atheists have no right to an opinion about atheism or to critique it�

The atheists moral dilema .. http://tinyurl.com/atheists-moral-dilemma

�Atheist NG's are endless posturing, ad hom bitch fights and little else, they are parasitic, sustained by the creative attacks of their opponents and their ritualised, scripted, responses. The vacuum occurs because they only have ONE idea, and that is a mere denial that something exists, an impotent, ineffectual, useless sub branch of Nihilism, not enough to sustain an interesting after dinner chat, let alone a great and enduring civilisation�

�It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history�

�Australia enjoys a level of peace, stability, prosperity, and equality that is the envy of many countries in the world. These qualities are related to the Judaeo-Christian principles that have shaped our governance, laws, institutions and general ethos as a nation. - Dr. Philip Freier, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne�

[felix_unger]

On 18-February-2013 4:27 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobaoqF37b8U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
>> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim, visit
>> their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or visions,
>> etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law enforcement
>> authorities?
> Complete frauds. Maybe one or two helped to solve a case. Oops. Lucky
> guess. The rest is showbiz.
>

How can you know no psychic ever helped solve a case? that's just your
opinion.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common to some or all of the Savior cults of antiquity" --JM Robertson, Pagan Christs

http://truthbeknown.com/

[felix_unger]

On 18-February-2013 4:29 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobkgoF5515U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> I do pity you and your ilk. you believe there is nothing mankind has yet
>> to learn, or does not yet understand or know. there are no forces in the
>> universe unknown to us. That is the atheist position, right?
> No, where did you get that idea? You're confusing us with theists.
>

From the postings of atheists saying they don't believe in anything
supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, etc., ie. beyond the realm of the
physical / material.

It was in the news some time ago about one of our famous cricket
players, that he awoke suddenly in the middle of the night while on tour
in England. Later when speaking to his wife he learnt that their much
loved dog had died, and factoring in the time differences between
Australia and the UK realized it was the same time he awoke. How do you
explain such things? Pure coincidence, chance? Often when I think about
someone they will ring, or I will ring, and they will say I was just
about to call you. All sorts of stuff like that happens.

[Dakota]

On 2/17/2013 11:51 AM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

Anti-theist is of more recent coinage and has not made many inroads
into the general population. I hadn't heard of it five years ago and I
try to keep up with such things.

However, the term 'strong' atheist, a person who claims that no god
exists, has been around for a long time yet few theists seem to be
acquainted with it. For those who haunt this newsgroup, it is willful
ignorance though. It's been explained to them countless times.

[Dakota]

The phony psychics are generally vague in their predictions The body
will be found near trees. Or near water. Or in a public place. That
vagueness allows them to claim success much of the time.

[Dakota]

That explains it. Our definitions don't match. I choose to accept the
definition implied by the etymology. The prefix 'a' negates the word
to which it is affixed.

A person who is moral conforms to a set of rules of conduct.

A person who is amoral does not conform to a set of rules of conduct.

Theist - a person who believes in a god or gods.

Atheist - a person who is not a theist.

The prefix 'ab' works the same way. Think 'normal' and 'abnormal'.

Your definition adds to 'atheist' a certainty not implied by that
etymology. The more common term for a person who claims with certainty
that there is no god is 'strong atheist.'

>
> And a theist is someone who is certain about the existence of their
> chosen deity or deities.
>
> I have no certainty one way or the other, which most people would
> label as being agnostic.
>

The terms theism and atheism pertain to beliefs of lack of beliefs.
Gnosticism and agnosticism are concerned with knowledge.

An agnostic may be an atheist or a theist. Such a person wouldn't be
certain with respect to the existence of a god or gods but could
choose to believe or not to believe in the absence of that knowledge.

A gnostic with respect to gods could be a theist or a strong atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a god but have no
certainty that no god exists.

>
> I go where the evidence leads me, and that includes personal and
> subjective experiences.
>
> Which makes me a pragmatist.
>
> So far no evidence confirms the existence of any deity or deities.
>
> But not being in possession of all the evidence I cannot confirm their
> non-existence either.
>
> So I'm basically a pragmatic agnostic.
>
> I hope that clears it up for you, you are welcome to disagree, but
> that's how I handle the world as I find it.
>

You've made it clear but left the relevant question unanswered. As a
pragmatic agnostic, do you believe in a god or not? I'm not talking
about certainty - only belief. It is an either-or question. One cannot
both believe and not believe at the same time.
So. Which is it?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

I don't see a contradiction there, for that is what "someone who is not
a theist" means.

[snip]

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought
which they avoid."
-- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard

[felix_unger]

On 18-February-2013 1:14 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist

right. but ppl who use that definition want to deny that an atheist is
"someone who doesn't believe in a god" by claiming it's not a belief.


--
rgds,

Pete
-------
http://www.truthbeknown.com/

[Uncle Vic]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in
news:aod36d...@mid.individual.net:

> On 18-February-2013 4:29 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobkgoF5515U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> I do pity you and your ilk. you believe there is nothing mankind has
>>> yet to learn, or does not yet understand or know. there are no
>>> forces in the universe unknown to us. That is the atheist position,
>>> right?
>> No, where did you get that idea? You're confusing us with theists.
>>
>
> From the postings of atheists saying they don't believe in anything
> supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, etc., ie. beyond the realm of the
> physical / material.

Right, but what does that have to do with a belief that mankind has
nothing more to learn, understand, or know? (Which is patently *not*
what atheists believe.)

>
> It was in the news some time ago about one of our famous cricket
> players, that he awoke suddenly in the middle of the night while on
> tour in England. Later when speaking to his wife he learnt that their
> much loved dog had died, and factoring in the time differences between
> Australia and the UK realized it was the same time he awoke. How do
> you explain such things? Pure coincidence, chance? Often when I think
> about someone they will ring, or I will ring, and they will say I was
> just about to call you. All sorts of stuff like that happens.
>

Don't believe everything you hear about.

Nicholas Cage said he believed he would feel something when his wife died
(in Knowing), but he didn't. That's my evidence. Where's yours?

[Uncle Vic]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in
news:aod31a...@mid.individual.net:

> On 18-February-2013 4:27 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobaoqF37b8U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
>>> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim,
>>> visit their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or
>>> visions, etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law
>>> enforcement authorities?
>> Complete frauds. Maybe one or two helped to solve a case. Oops.
>> Lucky guess. The rest is showbiz.
>>
>
> How can you know no psychic ever helped solve a case? that's just your
> opinion.
>

Of course it is. I'm just saying, if a psychic helps solve a case,
presumably with some kind of psychic outreach, it boils down to
probability. I guess it's a little better chance than the million monkeys
and a million typewriters theory, though.

[george152]

They're all phony heartless harridans hanging off grief stricken people

[felix_unger]

On 18-February-2013 2:22 PM, Uncle Vic wrote:
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in
> news:aod36d...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 18-February-2013 4:29 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobkgoF5515U1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> I do pity you and your ilk. you believe there is nothing mankind has
>>>> yet to learn, or does not yet understand or know. there are no
>>>> forces in the universe unknown to us. That is the atheist position,
>>>> right?
>>> No, where did you get that idea? You're confusing us with theists.
>>>
>> From the postings of atheists saying they don't believe in anything
>> supernatural, paranormal, spiritual, etc., ie. beyond the realm of the
>> physical / material.
> Right, but what does that have to do with a belief that mankind has
> nothing more to learn, understand, or know?

because there are discoveries still to be made

> (Which is patently *not*
> what atheists believe.)
>
>> It was in the news some time ago about one of our famous cricket
>> players, that he awoke suddenly in the middle of the night while on
>> tour in England. Later when speaking to his wife he learnt that their
>> much loved dog had died, and factoring in the time differences between
>> Australia and the UK realized it was the same time he awoke. How do
>> you explain such things? Pure coincidence, chance? Often when I think
>> about someone they will ring, or I will ring, and they will say I was
>> just about to call you. All sorts of stuff like that happens.
>>
> Don't believe everything you hear about.
>
> Nicholas Cage said he believed he would feel something when his wife died
> (in Knowing), but he didn't. That's my evidence. Where's yours?
>
>


--

[osugeography]

On Feb 17, 9:36 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> On 18/02/13 13:18, Dakota wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/17/2013 1:17 PM, george152 wrote:
> >> On 17/02/13 19:13, felix_unger wrote:
>
> >>> How do you explain psychics who work with police,
>
> >> There is no such.
> >> Every time this claim is made the police deny it and the vague claims
> >> made by so-called psychics never produce a result.
> >> One claim had the body many miles away in the opposite direction to
> >> where it was found.

> >>www.stopsylvia.comwould be a good place to see how a socalled psychic

> >> has attempted to operate
>
> > The phony psychics are generally vague in their predictions The body
> > will be found near trees. Or near water. Or in a public place. That
> > vagueness allows them to claim success much of the time.
>
> They're all phony heartless harridans hanging off grief stricken people

Agreed. With the addition that there are heartless male leeches also,
which I know you knew.

http://www.stopsylvia.com/home/ is, you guessed it, countering Sylvia
Browne.

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:48:09 +1100

I don't deny that an atheist is "someone who doesn't believe in a god"
because that's the crux of the atheist classification -- absence of
belief (which is "not a belief") in deities and supernatural agents.

It's not clear how claiming that atheism is not a belief contravenes
the fact that atheism is a classification of absence of belief.

Perhaps you intended to phrase your response differently?

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"I write knowing that if something I say is wrong or inaccurate or out
of line I'll be called on it. And if the accusation is convincing, I
will apologize and correct myself."
-- Jeanne Douglas (January 27, 2013)

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

That's rational, and it's an essential attitude for the attainment of
scientific progress, which I consider to be a worthwhile endeavor.

> Atheists always seem to want to impart sinister or malicious motives
> to ppl.

That's not been my experience nor observation. Most of the atheists I
know aren't, to my knowledge, suspicious of that (aside for politicans,
strategists, spies and secret police, military commanders, pot smokers,
certain cunning criminals, gang leaders, etc., but primarily for reasons
that are not directly related to atheism).

> that's been my experience with you (and others) anyway

I learned at an early age not to hold grudges after observing this to
be a common characteristic among many girls, and in particular some were
my friends. If you're implying something along these lines, then you
really haven't observed enough of my dealings with others because my
primary focus is usually on the meaning of a message far more than it is
on the messenger or their motives (which I've found to be invaluable in
the leadership roles I've taken on throughout my life).

I do hope that you're not incorrectly assuming that I'm unwilling to
change, for it is those refusing adaptataion who tend to encounter more
difficulty throughout their lives.

If you have a specific complaint, feel free to put it on public display
(e.g., in a reply or as a new thread) so that we can get it resolved,
for there is not beneficial to carry on with unresolved issues or ad
hominemistic frivolities that may be based on incorrect assumptions.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you
ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect
me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
-- Richard P. Feynman

[Devils Advocaat]

I believe you must accumulate facts.

From these facts knowledge grows.

In time understanding develops.

Understanding leads to the truth.

It may not be what you want.

It may not be what you expect.

But it will be the truth.

That is the only belief that I have.

[SkyEyes]

On Feb 17, 2:00 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 17-February-2013 6:43 PM, SkyEyes wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 11:13 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >> On 17-February-2013 9:41 AM, SkyEyes wrote:
>

> >>> I am an atheist who also grew up christian fundamentalist, so I know
> >>> where you're coming from.
> >>> Here's the thing about being afraid of ghosts, spirits, demons, etc.:
> >>> like gods, they don't exist.  Don't judge reality by what you see on
> >>> TV - remember, they're producing programs to sell to the public, and
> >>> those programs are the products of special effects and exaggeration.
> >>> If you want your gizmo that you saw on E-Bay, buy it and enjoy it.
> >>> There won't be any supernatural forces attached to it.
> >>> How do I know there's no such thing as ghosts, spirits, demons, etc.?
> >>> The same reason that I don't believe any god exists:  there's no
> >>> logical, objective, verifiable evidence that any such things exist.
> >>> When put to scientific test - not what's seen on TV, but tests by REAL
> >>> scientists - nothing is ever shown to exist.  Learn to incorporate
> >>> that into your atheism and you'll be a much happier person.
> >>> Learn not to confuse TV with reality.  They're not the same thing.

> >> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
> >> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim, visit
> >> their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or visions,
> >> etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law enforcement
> >> authorities?

> > Cite, please?  List, let's say, five cases where psychics have solved
> > crimes.  Put them here:
>
> I'm not aware of any specific cases, only what is said generally, and I
> certainly don't intend spending time looking to satisfy your demands. It
> you don't believe it's possible, why not just say so?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *

>
> I do pity you and your ilk. you believe there is nothing mankind has yet
> to learn, or does not yet understand or know.

Quite the opposite: *we* know how much we *don't* know, and how much
we'll never know. Just because we refuse to put up with superstitious
clap-trap doesn't mean we think we know everything.

there are no forces in the
> universe unknown to us. That is the atheist position, right?

No, but it's highly unlikely that any unknown forces are supernatural
in origin. My, my, you are *in love* with superstition, aren't you?

Consider
> perhaps, what someone living in the 13th. Century would make of a
> computer, if it were possible for them to see one. It would be
> completely beyond their comprehension.

Yes, yes, I know, I know: any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic. Thank you, Arthur C. Clarke.

However, we're not talking about advanced technologies, felix, we're
talking about *superstition*. There is no there there.

In one, two, or however many more
> centuries from now, we will look as ignorant to people living then as
> persons from the middle ages now appear to us.- providing mankind has
> not annihilated itself in the meantime.

And I expect we'll know a good deal more than we do now. Just none of
it will be superstition.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Dakota]

Okay.

[Dakota]

On 2/17/2013 8:14 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:

The are essentially the same.

[Dakota]

On 2/17/2013 11:44 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

Of course. Absence of belief, ipso facto, is not a belief. I don't see
any conflict.

I'm not sure what felix is babbling about unless he's trying to claim
that atheists have to support their lack of belief with evidence. Many
theists wish it was the atheists who had to provide evidence rather
than themselves. Unfortunately for them, they're the ones making a
positive claim about reality.

[Devils Advocaat]

It's certainly an easier belief to manage than many religious ones.

[Dakota]

On 2/17/2013 9:26 PM, Uncle Vic wrote:
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in
> news:aod31a...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 18-February-2013 4:27 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobaoqF37b8U1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
>>>> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim,
>>>> visit their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or
>>>> visions, etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law
>>>> enforcement authorities?
>>> Complete frauds. Maybe one or two helped to solve a case. Oops.
>>> Lucky guess. The rest is showbiz.
>>
>> How can you know no psychic ever helped solve a case? that's just your
>> opinion.
>
> Of course it is. I'm just saying, if a psychic helps solve a case,
> presumably with some kind of psychic outreach, it boils down to
> probability. I guess it's a little better chance than the million monkeys
> and a million typewriters theory, though.
>

For a brief time, I used to buy copies of the supermarket tabloids in
December and save them for a year. Those issues generally feature
several so-called psychics presenting their predictions for the coming
year. Most are vague enough to find application sometime within a
year's time. The few specific predictions nearly always failed. The
'million monkeys' theory adequately explains the occasional hit.

[Dakota]

You put it much better than I did.

[Dakota]

I didn't catch the most probably unintentional misogyny until you
pointed it out. Thanks.

[Dakota]

Yet superstition will persist.

[A B]

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com>
wrote in message
news:20130217220702.03ca...@fidemturbare.com...

Just to clear up: I'm in the UK. (sorry, was leaving it to be inferred from
my e-mail address, but I suppose that's not much to be sure from since it's
a fake one). I've never heard the term "anti-theist" outside this
newsgroup, that I can remember, and "beady-eyed" is usually just used to
mean "observant, critical", I certainly wasn't trying to claim to be
malicious! Two nations divided by a common language :-)

I don't know what the history of the term "atheist" is; it certainly can't
be originally derived from "theist", if Wikipedia is right that "atheist" is
actually an older term than "theist". From the actual construction of the
word, it seems to me that it could just as easily mean someone who believes
there is no god (which is how I generally see it used in this country) or
someone who has no belief in a god (the way you're using it). In the same
way "anti-theist" could be taken to mean someone who doesn't like theists,
and I've known a few of those...

Bear in mind I'm actually posting from alt.paranormal, and I didn't know
what the accepted usage is in alt.atheism.

--
A. B.
><>
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk, though I don't check that
account very often.
Post unto others as you would have them post unto you.

[felix_unger]

If that were true you would accept that there are things we (humans) do
not yet know about or understand

> Just because we refuse to put up with superstitious
> clap-trap doesn't mean we think we know everything.
>
>
>> there are no forces in th

>> euniverse unknown to us. That is the atheist position, right?

> No, but it's highly unlikely that any unknown forces are supernatural
> in origin. My, my, you are *in love* with superstition, aren't you?

no I'm not smartarse. I just prefer to have an open mind

>
>> Consider
>> perhaps, what someone living in the 13th. Century would make of a
>> computer, if it were possible for them to see one. It would be
>> completely beyond their comprehension.
> Yes, yes, I know, I know: any sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistinguishable from magic. Thank you, Arthur C. Clarke.

The point was that they couldn't understand it because it requires
knowledge about what they had no knowledge of

>
> However, we're not talking about advanced technologies, felix, we're
> talking about *superstition*. There is no there there.

who's talking about superstition?

>
> In one, two, or however many more
>> centuries from now, we will look as ignorant to people living then as
>> persons from the middle ages now appear to us.- providing mankind has
>> not annihilated itself in the meantime.
> And I expect we'll know a good deal more than we do now. Just none of
> it will be superstition.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
�I'll take a position on the existence of God, when you can tell me why I have to�

The atheists moral dilema .. http://tinyurl.com/atheists-moral-dilemma

[Alex W.]

I am not a quibbler, but....

- both of the above do conform to a set of rules of conduct. The
difference is that the moral person conforms to rules of conduct
that are accepted and shared by his peers and his society. The
amoral person has his own personal rules.

- "amoral" is not the opposite of "moral". To break the rules of
social conduct is to be "immoral". Amorality is the absence of
any such rules in the individual, and is really quite rare.

>
> Theist - a person who believes in a god or gods.
>
> Atheist - a person who is not a theist.

It is important to note that neither of which terms speaks to
affiliation with or adherence to a particular religion. It is
perfectly possible for someone to be a theist outside any form of
organised faith, just as it is perfectly possible to be utterly
unbelieving of any deity and yet be a committed member of a
religious organisaiton (usually for social, cultural, traditional
or selfish reasons).

[Uncle Vic]

Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in news:kft2lv$nsk$1...@dont-email.me:

Yup, that's what I was trying (in vain) to explain to FU. I see why they
put the special kids in special classrooms now. They learn much more
slowly, if at all.

[Dakota]

Atheism needs no management at all.

[Dakota]

Most of us here at a.a define an atheist as a person who does not
believe in a god. I.e. A non-theist. The term strong atheist is rarely
used but, when it is, it refers to a person who claims there is no god.

Anti-theist pops up now and again. Some use it to refer to strong
atheists. Other require active opposition to religious belief. I think
it an unnecessary and distracting term.

The term 'atheist' was apparently coined by theists as a pejorative.

Here's what the OED shows for the words.

theist1

(ˈθiːɪst)

[mod. f. Gr. θε-ός god + -ist. Cf. F. théiste (Voltaire).]

One who holds the doctrine of theism: in earlier use = deist; in later
use, esp. as distinguished from this: see note s.v. deist.

1662 E. Martin Five Lett. 45 To have said my office‥twice a
day‥among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of
Reason, Puritanes [etc.]. a 1679 W. Owtram Serm. (1682) A v, What
theist was ever known to live according to the principles of natural
religion? a 1734 North Exam. iii. viii. §11 (1740) 590 He [Oates]
did but use the Privilege of a Theist or Freethinker, of which Crew,
or worse, he plainly declared himself. 1820 Polwhele in Lavington's
Enthus. Meth. & Papists Introd. 135 The highly-polished preacher,
whose audience are theophilanthropists or theists. 1870 J. H.
Newman Gram. Assent v. §2. 120 No one is to be called a Theist, who
does not believe in a Personal God.

b.b attrib. and Comb.

1711 Hickes Two Treat. Chr. Priesth. (1847) I. 267 His
atheist-ridden, or theist-ridden‥mind. 1755 T. Amory Mem. (1766)
II. 107 The writings of the old theist philosophers.

atheist, n. (and a.)

(ˈeɪθiːɪst)

Also 6 atheyst, 6–7 athist(e.

[a. F. athéiste (16th c. in Littré), or It. atheista: see prec. and
-ist.]

A.A n.

1.A.1 One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[a 1568 Coverdale Hope of Faithf. Pref. Wks. II. 139 Eat we and
drink we lustily; to-morrow we shall die: which all the epicures
protest openly, and the Italian atheoi.] 1571 Golding Calvin on Ps.
Ep. Ded. 3 The Atheistes which say‥there is no God. 1604 Rowlands
Looke to it 23 Thou damned Athist‥That doest deny his power which did
create thee. 1709 Shaftesbury Charac. i. i. §2 (1737) II. 11 To
believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any Cause,
Measure, or Rule of Things, but Chance‥is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I
understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the
affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative
assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.

2.A.2 One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard
of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

1577 Hanmer Anc. Eccl. Hist. 63 The opinion which they conceaue of
you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men. 1660 Stanley Hist. Philos.
323/2 An Atheist is taken two ways, for him who is an enemy to the
Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods. 1667 Milton P.L.
i. 495 When the Priest Turns Atheist, as did Ely's Sons. 1827 Hare
Guesses Ser. i. (1873) 27 Practically every man is an atheist, who
lives without God in the world.

B.B attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

1667 Milton P.L. vi. 370 The Atheist crew. 1821 Lockhart
Valerino II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath
pierced the upper and the nether sky.

[Uncle Vic]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aoekniFq16oU1
@mid.individual.net:

>> No, but it's highly unlikely that any unknown forces are supernatural
>> in origin. My, my, you are *in love* with superstition, aren't you?
>
> no I'm not smartarse. I just prefer to have an open mind

When you open your mind, you must be careful what falls in.

[Uncle Vic]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aodj3bFj35oU1
@mid.individual.net:

>>> So why do you change the meaning? If you define Theist (correctly, I
>>> might add) as "someone who believes in a god" why then is atheist not
>>> "someone who doesn't believe in a god" ?
>> I don't see a contradiction there, for that is what "someone who is not
>> a theist" means.
>
> right. but ppl who use that definition want to deny that an atheist is
> "someone who doesn't believe in a god" by claiming it's not a belief.

You're confusing "Someone who doesn't believe in a god" with "Someone who
believes there is no god". You're changing a lack of belief into a
positive belief.

[Devils Advocaat]

Did I mention a hierarchy? :P

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:14:00 +1100, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>:

>On 18-February-2013 4:27 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobaoqF37b8U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
>>> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim, visit
>>> their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or visions,
>>> etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law enforcement
>>> authorities?
>> Complete frauds. Maybe one or two helped to solve a case. Oops. Lucky
>> guess. The rest is showbiz.
>>
>
>How can you know no psychic ever helped solve a case? that's just your
>opinion.

Actually, he said "Maybe one or two helped to solve a case".
But the burden of proof, as always, is on the claimant. So
please post the cites to links supporting your claim, links
we can examine.

And BTW, just what has this to do with atheism?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[BruceS]

On 02/17/2013 02:21 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
wrote:
<snip>
> nonsense and wild guesses to solve cases, instead of L.O.V.E. (Logical,
> Objective, Verifiable Evidence), hard work, and statistical probability.

I saw this acronym earlier, and meant to ask about it. Given that
L.O.V.E. has the above expansion, what's the expansion of F.A.I.T.H.? I
was thinking it would be something like F All Intelligent Thought Here,
but I can't get the F to work. Maybe Falsifiability Absent In This House?

[BruceS]

On 02/16/2013 04:01 PM, raven1 wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0800 (PST), Madame Monpetit
> <madamem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
>> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
>> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
>> being posed here. So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
>> crank, weirdo, ect." then please don't bother replying. I consider
>> myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the mental scars
>> left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
>> upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
>> eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
>> and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
>> laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
>> could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
>> vibes, bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds
>> insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
>> objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
>> have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
>> activity in their homes, ect.
>>
>> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
>> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
>> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
>> home?.
>

> Watch a few episodes of "Scooby Doo, Where Are You?". It's always the
> caretaker at the end when they pull the mask off, because there's no
> such thing as ghosts.

Maybe so, but he would have gotten away with the whole thing if not for
those meddling kids! That's what atheist debunkers are like: a group of
kids who use simple logic and reason to pull the mask off liars and frauds.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 16, 4:34 pm, Madame Monpetit <madamemonpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
> being posed here. So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
> crank, weirdo, ect." then please don't bother replying. I consider
> myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the mental scars
> left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
> eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
> and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
> laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
> could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
> vibes, bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds
> insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
> objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
> have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
> activity in their homes, ect.
>
> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
> home?.
>

> Thank you!
>
> Madame Monpetit

People in general tend to be very delusional in one regard or
another. One problem with religion (among many) is that it encourages
the fostering and perpetuation of delusion and superstition.

Your job is to refuse to buy into other people's delusions (or your
own, for that matter). If you see something you want on ebay and you
can afford it, the hell with other people's blind superstitions. I
guarantee you it's not haunted or possessed. Go buy it. And
steralize it. You're more at risk from bacteria, viruses, and
parasites than you ever will be from demons and evil spirits!

You should try reading some good books about psychology (not
parapyschology): how easily people are fooled, and how readily they
fool themselves.

According to *all* of available scientific evidence there are no gods;
there are no ghosts; there are no demons; there are no spirits (other
than what you can buy at the liquor store). There are many things out
there which can harm you, including deranged fundies, but none of
these things is supernatural.

Budikka

[BruceS]

On 02/17/2013 10:47 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:34:35 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Madame Monpetit
> <madamem...@gmail.com>:

>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I am looking for some advice from nonjudgmental atheists. I know that
>> many atheists on this newsgroup tend to be quite accusatory,
>> judgemental, defensive and even quite rude when it comes to questions
>> being posed here. So if you are going to call me an "idiot, fool,
>> crank, weirdo, ect." then please don't bother replying. I consider
>> myself to be an Atheist, but I still struggle with the mental scars
>> left by my Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
>> upbringing. So here is my issue: I want to buy a ceramic statue from
>> eBay, which was made in the 1960's. It is in good shape but quite old
>> and has had a few owners. I know this sounds
>> laughable and ridiculously to many people, but I fear that this item
>> could be "haunted" or otherwise "possessed" by evil spirits, negative
>> vibes, bad energy, ect. Yes, I know it sounds
>> insane, but I have watched many documentaries about second hand
>> objects which people have bought at garage sales and stuff, and who
>> have claimed that after obtaining them, they experienced paranormal
>> activity in their homes, ect.
>>
>> Any nonjudgmental, kind, gentle, helpful advice for someone
>> who's fears are informed by childhood mental scars as the result
>> of growing up in an Evangelical Christian Fundamentalist
>> home?.
>

> Since you lacked the courtesy to respond to the several
> thoughtful replies to your previous post regarding incest,
> I'll pass on this one.

It's a transparent troll, but it led to an interesting discussion. The
best trolls (IMNSHO) return to the scene of the crime and keep things
running. There's one in comp.lang.c who does this frequently, and
remains effective. But there again, regulars often turn his troll
threads into useful, informative discussions.

[Budikka666]

On Feb 17, 12:13 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> How do you explain psychics who work with police

There are no such people. Psychics are liars and thats all there is
too them. It's not the police who spread stories about psychics
helping them, because there are none. It's the psychics who lie that
they've helped, and then they rely on suckers like you to perpetuate
their lies.

We know this for a fact because if the psychics were that good there
would never be anyone getting away with a crime, nor would there be
anyone falsely imprisoned, There's your proof right there.

Budikka

[Dakota]

I missed it before but you did answer my question asking if you
believed in god or not. The need to accumulate facts is your only
belief. Therefore you do not believe in a god as that would be another
belief. Ergo, you are an atheist. Welcome to alt.atheism. :)

[Dakota]

The OP included alt.paranormal in the distribution.

[osugeography]

Hi, BruceS.

Forego? (all...)

Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com

[BruceS]

I like that. It's a bit less vulgar than what I was implying.

[felix_unger]

On 19-February-2013 3:42 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aoekniFq16oU1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>>> No, but it's highly unlikely that any unknown forces are supernatural
>>> in origin. My, my, you are *in love* with superstition, aren't you?
>> no I'm not smartarse. I just prefer to have an open mind
> When you open your mind, you must be careful what falls in.
>

That's why I don't believe what cannot be proven. I just observe and
consider possibilities.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rub�iy�t of Omar Khayy�m

[Devils Advocaat]

Wrong, the need to accumulate facts is not my only belief, it is only
a part of my belief.

Please don't twist my words to make out that I belong to your belief
system.

May I suggest you go back and read the relevant post again?

[BruceS]

Wouldn't it be more sensible for you to simply state whether you believe
in god(s) or not? Your response seems like an attempt to avoid the
question.

[Devils Advocaat]

I've made my one belief quite clear.

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <aobaoq...@mid.individual.net>,
m...@nothere.com says...

> > Learn not to confuse TV with reality. They're not the same thing.
>

> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim, visit
> their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or visions,
> etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law enforcement
> authorities?

The above is just a perfect example of your inability to
distinguish TV from reality.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

[Brian E. Clark]

In article <aobkgo...@mid.individual.net>,
m...@nothere.com says...

> I do pity you and your ilk. you believe there is nothing mankind has yet

> to learn, or does not yet understand or know. there are no forces in the
> universe unknown to us.

But you're not talking about unknown forces. You're talking
about forces that are supposedly known to exist (psychic
phenomena, for example) but for which you cannot provide
the slightest shred of reliable evidence.

[felix_unger]

That's no proof at all. To be true it would require a psychic to be
involved in each and every crime.

>
> Budikka


--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"If Julia is the answer, then what was the stupid question!"

“This election is about trust. The choice before the Australian people could not be clearer. It’s more tax or less. It’s more regulation or less. It’s less competence or more. It’s less freedom or more” - Tony Abbott, Federal Opposition Leader

Sept 14th. is National Rubbish Collection day.. ausnet.info/pics/rubbish_collection.jpg

[felix_unger]

So how do you explain how our pets know what the owners are thinking, or
understand their moods?

[felix_unger]

On 19-February-2013 4:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:14:00 +1100, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>:
>
>> On 18-February-2013 4:27 AM, Uncle Vic wrote:
>>> felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in news:aobaoqF37b8U1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> How do you explain psychics who work with police, often very
>>>> successfully, and physically feel objects belonging to the victim, visit
>>>> their home, the crime scene, etc., and get 'vibrations' or visions,
>>>> etc/. that allow them to provide useful info to the law enforcement
>>>> authorities?
>>> Complete frauds. Maybe one or two helped to solve a case. Oops. Lucky
>>> guess. The rest is showbiz.
>>>
>> How can you know no psychic ever helped solve a case? that's just your
>> opinion.
> Actually, he said "Maybe one or two helped to solve a case".
> But the burden of proof, as always, is on the claimant. So
> please post the cites to links supporting your claim,

I haven't made any claim. try again.

> links
> we can examine.
>
> And BTW, just what has this to do with atheism?

It's the way the thread has developed for which I am not responsible.

[Dakota]

I tried to paraphrase your post but apparently interpreted it incorrectly.

Here's what you posted.

"I believe you must accumulate facts.

From these facts knowledge grows.

In time understanding develops.

Understanding leads to the truth.

It may not be what you want.

It may not be what you expect.

But it will be the truth.

That is the only belief that I have."

Your last sentence makes it absolutely clear that you have only one
belief. That belief is not a belief in a god. Ergo, you do not believe
in a god because that would be an additional belief and you have only
the one. Thus you are an atheist.

I have no belief with respect to gods. An absence of belief does not
constitute a belief system.

I can tell that you are quite sensitive about this so I wont bring it
up again. I have too much respect for you to continue with this futile
exercise in semantics. I'm sorry if I offended you.

[Devils Advocaat]

You're still putting your personal spin on what I've already stated
clearly.

[Dakota]

Sorry.

[Devils Advocaat]

I'm not offended, just disgruntled.

Now it's going to take an age to find my gruntle, and remove that
nasty dis from it.

And the cream needed is so expensive.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:16:30 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com>:

Although I could make one suggestion for the "F", how about
"Forget Any Intelligent Thought Here"?

> Maybe Falsifiability Absent In This House?

That works too... ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:58:30 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS <bruc...@hotmail.com>:

True, although that hardly exonerates the troll.