Is Bill Gates an Atheist? (was: Appeals Court Affirms Some Prayer In Public Schools)
Matt Miller
da...@u.washington.edu says...
> "Gremlin" <ad...@gremlin.net> wrote:
> >Xalan wrote in message <7bpd3p$euq$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net>...
>
> >>Ed I suppose all your praying as usual hasn't paid off then. I remember you
> >>stated once that God solves all, maybe that exclude IE4. Instead of relying
> >>on faith in the future why don't you do the sensible thing and invest in a
> >>backup device. Physical tends to be more useful than mystical.
> >>
> >>Xalan
> >
> >Bill Gates claims to be an atheist; maybe there's a connexion there.
>
> Geez, I thought he claimed to be god ;^)
> Seriously, though, where did he claim to
> be an atheist?
From the Celebrity Atheist List
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/atheistcelebs/
Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David
Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a
regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not
something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in
the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very
positive impact.
Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a
god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you
don't know?
Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific
approach to why things happen and how they happen. I
don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious
principles are quite valid.
--RK
----
Gates was profiled in a January 13, 1996 TIME magazine
cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge
Report:
"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about
the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates
"His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes
Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds
his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth
in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at
MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round
table of ecstatic rabbis."
"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't
have any evidence of that."
He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time
resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I
could be doing on a Sunday morning."
David B. Greene
>Xalan wrote in message <7bpd3p$euq$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net>...
>>Ed I suppose all your praying as usual hasn't paid off then. I remember you
>>stated once that God solves all, maybe that exclude IE4. Instead of relying
>>on faith in the future why don't you do the sensible thing and invest in a
>>backup device. Physical tends to be more useful than mystical.
>>
>>Xalan
>
>Bill Gates claims to be an atheist; maybe there's a connexion there.
Geez, I thought he claimed to be god ;^)
Seriously, though, where did he claim to
be an atheist?
>And that's something I should probably take into account: MicroSuck has
>probably done more to convince the modern world that there is no god than
>any other corporation.
Either that or they got religion with Linux.
>Ironic that Ed would be using Exploiter, written by
>an atheist, to come in here and tell us how productive we all aren't...
So, again, where did Big Bad Bill claim to be atheist?
Dave Greene
rrcrumb
Nathan Myrvoldd [sp] sure seems like one.
And yes,it does make me think less
of them and......
YES,it explains why he does some of the things
he does.
rrc
Matt Miller <matm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.115e2a90c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> In article <36f43691...@news.u.washington.edu>,
> da...@u.washington.edu says...
> > "Gremlin" <ad...@gremlin.net> wrote:
> > >Xalan wrote in message <7bpd3p$euq$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net>...
> >
> > >>Ed I suppose all your praying as usual hasn't paid off then. I
remember you
> > >>stated once that God solves all, maybe that exclude IE4. Instead of
relying
> > >>on faith in the future why don't you do the sensible thing and invest
in a
> > >>backup device. Physical tends to be more useful than mystical.
> > >>
> > >>Xalan
> > >
> > >Bill Gates claims to be an atheist; maybe there's a connexion there.
> >
> > Geez, I thought he claimed to be god ;^)
> > Seriously, though, where did he claim to
> > be an atheist?
>
Jim F.
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<RM4J2.6296$lm.37...@news2.mia>...
> I always figured he is an atheist.
> Nathan Myrvoldd [sp] sure seems like one.
>
> And yes,it does make me think less
> of them and......
> YES,it explains why he does some of the things
> he does.
>
I always thought that the explanation for why Bill Gates does
the things that he does is because he is a monopoly capitalist.
Jim F.
maff91
January 13, 1997 issue
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/gates/vision.html
"Analytically, I would say nature has
done a good job making child-raising
more pleasure than pain, since that is
necessary for a species to survive. But
the experience goes beyond analytic
description. Evolution is many orders of
magnitude ahead of mankind today in
creating a complex system. I don't think
it's irreconcilable to say we will
understand the human mind some day
and explain it in software-like terms,
and also to say it is a creation that
shouldn't be compared to software.
Religion has come around to the view
that even things that can be explained
scientifically can have an underlying
purpose that goes beyond the science.
Even though I am not religious, the
amazement and wonder I have about
the human mind is closer to religious
awe than dispassionate analysis."
ju...@pconline.com.spambait
And he's acheived the atheist holy grail: Proving there is no god by
giving the world Windows.
'Than
mike
rrcrumb wrote:
> I always figured he is an atheist.
> Nathan Myrvoldd [sp] sure seems like one.
>
> And yes,it does make me think less
> of them and......
> YES,it explains why he does some of the things
> he does.
I always assumed he was just a greedy bastard like your average Christian
televangelist. I guess that would be the valid parts of morality he speaks of.
It somewhat surprised me to find out he was agnostic, even though he's obvously
quite intelligent. Come to think of it, like every preist I have laid eyes upon
is more apt to be a greedy bastard.
-mike#1375
> rrc
Todd Adamson
: Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David
: Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
: Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
: Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a
: regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not
: something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in
: the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very
: positive impact.
: Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a
: god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you
: don't know?
: Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific
: approach to why things happen and how they happen. I
: don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious
: principles are quite valid.
: --RK
What a weasel. Based on the above, I can conclude that Bill Gates
is not religious, but likes religious principles. Geez, Bill, you
should run for political office.
---
Todd Adamson - tada...@netins.net #1114
**************************************
* Now I just want to thank you *
* for going insane *
* Every moment you suffer *
* is a loss that I gain *
* Every breath is drain down *
* down into a hole *
* And your mind is a shrinking thing *
* It was crushed by your skull *
* *
* - SWANS *
**************************************
Gamma
>
>I always assumed he was just a greedy bastard like your average Christian
>televangelist. I guess that would be the valid parts of morality he speaks of.
>It somewhat surprised me to find out he was agnostic, even though he's obvously
>quite intelligent. Come to think of it, like every preist I have laid eyes upon
>is more apt to be a greedy bastard.
Er? You think agnosticism and high intelligence are inconsistent?
--
Paul Brinkley
ga...@clark.net
Ann
a member of the first national holyrolling alliance to crown Mickey Mouse
the second coming? I buy software from his company, I don't look to him to
provide me with moral guidance.
Gamma wrote in message <7d41lf$lj8$1...@callisto.clark.net>...
Craig Dowell
>Nathan Myrvoldd [sp] sure seems like one.
>
>And yes,it does make me think less
>of them and......
>YES,it explains why he does some of the things
>he does.
Uh, huh. As opposed, of course, to the right God fearing ministers of the
gospel who convince little old ladies to send them their last dimes as
"love gifts" and then spend the cash on a seventh mink-upolstered Rolls-
Royce.
Peter Seebach
>Does it matter if Bill Gates is an atheist, a christian, a hindu, a jew, or
>a member of the first national holyrolling alliance to crown Mickey Mouse
>the second coming? I buy software from his company, I don't look to him to
>provide me with moral guidance.
It might matter to some people...
Although, frankly, I think buying software from his company is a sufficient
sign of bad judgement... ;-)
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
mike
>
> mike <mtc...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >I always assumed he was just a greedy bastard like your average Christian
> >televangelist. I guess that would be the valid parts of morality he speaks of.
> >It somewhat surprised me to find out he was agnostic, even though he's obvously
> >quite intelligent. Come to think of it, like every preist I have laid eyes upon
> >is more apt to be a greedy bastard.
>
> Er? You think agnosticism and high intelligence are inconsistent?
No, It surprised me to find out he was agnostic, ----even though
I know him to be intelligent.----
It can be read differently. I used to be agnostic for awhile.
Relax... ;)
-mike#1375
>
> --
>
> Paul Brinkley
> ga...@clark.net
Rev.Rowane
Robert Billing
> the second coming? I buy software from his company, I don't look to him to
^^^
Oh well, we all make mistakes...
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"
Gamma
Ah. Right. I see now.
>Relax... ;)
Ok. :)
[thud]
Whoops, too relaxed.
...that's better...
--
Paul Brinkley
ga...@clark.net
gr...@apple2.com
in alt.folklore.computers, se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> Although, frankly, I think buying software from his company is a sufficient
> sign of bad judgement... ;-)
I didn't know they sold software. I thought they always just leased it.
--
Nine quadrillion, nine hundred ninety-nine trillion, nine hundred ninety-nine
billion, nine hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand,
nine hundred fifteen bottles of beer. You take one down, pass it around, nine
quadrillion, nine hundred ninety-nine trillion, nine hundred ninety-nine
Nathan Weyerman
Matt Miller wrote:
> >Bill Gates claims to be an atheist; maybe there's a connexion there.
>
> Geez, I thought he claimed to be god ;^)
> Seriously, though, where did he claim to
> be an atheist?
From the Celebrity Atheist List
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/atheistcelebs/
Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David
Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a
regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not
something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in
the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very
positive impact.Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a
god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you
don't know?Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific
approach to why things happen and how they happen. I
don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious
principles are quite valid.
This is not a claim of atheism. Atheism is the disbelief of God. He just says he doesn't know one way or the other.
Gates was profiled in a January 13, 1996 TIME magazine
cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge
Report:"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about
the human soul?" interviewer Walter Isaacson asks Gates
"His face suddenly becomes expressionless," writes
Isaacson, "his squeaky voice turns toneless, and he folds
his arms across his belly and vigorously rocks back and forth
in a mannerism that has become so mimicked at
MICROSOFT that a meeting there can resemble a round
table of ecstatic rabbis.""I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates. "I don't
have any evidence of that."He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time
resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I
could be doing on a Sunday morning."
Where does he state he is atheist?
Clave T
news:7d72p7$69c$1...@news.ipa.net...
>I don't know about that, I remember the days of all DOS.
In the beginning, there was the word. The word was ALTAIR and all
feared the ALTAIR.
Jim
Clave T
news:36F6F246...@baawa.org...
>Gamma wrote:
>>
>> mike <mtc...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >I always assumed he was just a greedy bastard like your average
Christian
>> >televangelist. I guess that would be the valid parts of morality he
speaks of.
>> >It somewhat surprised me to find out he was agnostic, even though
he's obvously
>> >quite intelligent. Come to think of it, like every preist I have
laid eyes upon
>> >is more apt to be a greedy bastard.
>>
>> Er? You think agnosticism and high intelligence are inconsistent?
>
>No, It surprised me to find out he was agnostic, ----even though
>I know him to be intelligent.----
>
>It can be read differently. I used to be agnostic for awhile.
I used to be agnostic too -- nowadays I just don't know.
Jim
Johan Kullstam
wtf's wrong with being an atheist?
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
phreatic
Nathan Weyerman wrote in message <36F7DCAC...@email.byu.edu>...
In an interview with Barbra Walters, she asked if he beleived in God, and he simply said "I beleive in the moral values christianity teaches" or something like that. I dont have the exact transcript, sorry.
David C. Wright
"Ann" <sid...@kwic.com> wrote:
>Does it matter if Bill Gates is an atheist, a christian, a hindu, a jew, or
>a member of the first national holyrolling alliance to crown Mickey Mouse
Besides, insofar as an atheist does not believe in a higher power, a god
must, perforce, be atheist.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its written on.
Donald Tees
>Besides, insofar as an atheist does not believe in a higher power, a god
>must, perforce, be atheist.
No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
Greg Menke
Its not the atheist part, its the Bill Gates part....
Gregm
Jordin Kare
<kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
> wtf's wrong with being an atheist?
No, no. The correct question is:
What in God's name is wrong with being an atheist?
Jordin (apathetic agnostic -- I don't know and I don't care) Kare
Hognoxious
Greg Menke wrote in message ...
>
>Its not the atheist part, its the Bill Gates part....
>
Well, how likely *is* the Antichrist to be a devoted churchgoer?
Fred
Donald Tees a écrit dans le message <7dakkb$svg$1...@news.igs.net>...
Taki Kogoma
alt.folklore.computers, jtk...@ibm.net (Jordin Kare) allegedly proclaimed:
> Jordin (apathetic agnostic -- I don't know and I don't care) Kare
Um. How does that differ from Apatheism?
Gym "The (non-)existance of god(s) is/are not my problem: I've got
more pressing things to worry about." Quirk
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)
dodger
From the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Ed:
atheism - n. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God.
agnostic - n. One who believes that there can be no proof of the
existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
The pronouning of "God" above was done by American Heritage. For the
record (if anybody cares), I'm an atheist-leaning-agnostic. So I'm
biased in that direction.
- Shawn
Donald Tees
>
>Donald Tees a écrit dans le message <7dakkb$svg$1...@news.igs.net>...
>>David C. Wright wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Besides, insofar as an atheist does not believe in a higher power, a god
>>>must, perforce, be atheist.
>>
>>No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
>>
>isn't that an "agnostic" (Or maybe it's just the opposite...)
>
Donald Tees
Hognoxious wrote in message <7dbc5a$lpn$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Greg Menke wrote in message ...
>>
>>Its not the atheist part, its the Bill Gates part....
>>
>Well, how likely *is* the Antichrist to be a devoted churchgoer?
>
if you do not give a damn about religion. Standard dogma is that it will be
a rabble rousing bible-thumper type.
>
Clave T
news:7dboc2$irn$1...@news.igs.net...
I thought it was supposed to be some European Jew?
Jim
Torah-thumper, maybe?
John Smith
religious/atheist war. both religious and atheist type people are stupid
when it comes to that topic because they are so fuckin arrogant cuz they
think that they know it all. Atleast agnostics admit that they have no
religion and don't know what is there.
mike wrote:
> It somewhat surprised me to find out he was agnostic, even though he's obvously
> quite intelligent. Come to think of it, like every preist I have laid eyes upon
> is more apt to be a greedy bastard.
>
> -mike#1375
>
> > rrc
--
BeOS why just think different? Be Different
Like Punk, Ska and Swing? http://surf.to/eot
Mail from hotmail and usa.net domains is
automatically deleted. These 2 domains have been
responsible for most of my spam related headaches
mike
sounded to you. ;)
Tom Harrington
: Matt Miller wrote:
: > From the Celebrity Atheist List
: > http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/atheistcelebs/
<snip>
: > Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific
: > approach to why things happen and how they happen. I
: > don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious
: > principles are quite valid.
: This is not a claim of atheism. Atheism is the disbelief of God. He just says he
: doesn't know one way or the other.
More importantly, who gives a damn? I can't imagine why anyone would care
what religious beliefs he holds, or does not hold. He runs a freakin'
software company, he's not trying to pass himself off as some kind of
moral leader.
--
Tom Harrington --------- t...@rmii.com -------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph
Small forest creatures have become one with their surroundings due to
Hand Grenades. -"MAKE FRAGMENTS FAST", by de...@te.com
Cookie's Revenge: ftp://ftp.rmi.net/pub2/tph/cookie/cookies-revenge.sit.hqx
Kin Hoong CHUNG
: Donald Tees a écrit dans le message <7dakkb$svg$1...@news.igs.net>...
:>David C. Wright wrote in message ...
:>
:>>Besides, insofar as an atheist does not believe in a higher power, a god
:>>must, perforce, be atheist.
:>
:>No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
:>
: isn't that an "agnostic" (Or maybe it's just the opposite...)
An agnostic is one who merely claims that he/she/it has no incontrovertible
evidence of existence of god. The atheist applies Occam's Razor to this
proposition,
eg. Laplace's reply to Napoleon's remark about the lack of reference to
god in _M\'echanique_c\'eleste_: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette
hypoth\`ese-l\`a.
Cheers,
Kin Hoong
David C. Wright
"Donald Tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
...
>No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
That's what I said.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
Peace can be done, but it requires two things: People who will live for
it, and people who will die for it. - David C. Wright
David C. Wright
"Donald Tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
...
>An agnostic is someone who refuses to give an opinion.
An agnostic is an atheist with an insurance policy.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
America has been discovered before, but it has always been hushed up.
Jon Skeet
> >No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
>
> That's what I said.
Nope, you said "higher power". A god can believe in a god (itself)
without believing in any power higher than itself.
--
Jon Skeet - sk...@pobox.com
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
Donald Tees
David C. Wright wrote in message ...
>"Donald Tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
>
>>An agnostic is someone who refuses to give an opinion.
>
>An agnostic is an atheist with an insurance policy.
>
;<)
Donald Tees
kindness, justice ... I believe in many higher powers and a balance between
them. I do not believe in a specific god.
David C. Wright wrote in message ...
>In group alt.fan.bill-gates, article <7dakkb$svg$1...@news.igs.net>,
>"Donald Tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
>
>...
>
>>No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
>
>That's what I said.
>
>--
> David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
>
John Smith
that something is there, but don't know what it is for certain and we
have no religious affilition.
Fred wrote:
>
> Donald Tees a écrit dans le message <7dakkb$svg$1...@news.igs.net>...
> >David C. Wright wrote in message ...
> >
> >>Besides, insofar as an atheist does not believe in a higher power, a god
> >>must, perforce, be atheist.
> >
> >
> >No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
> >
> >
> >
> isn't that an "agnostic" (Or maybe it's just the opposite...)
--
Taki Kogoma
mantikor @ hotmail.com (Mantikor) allegedly proclaimed:
>>More importantly, who gives a damn? I can't imagine why anyone would care
>>what religious beliefs he holds, or does not hold. He runs a freakin'
>>software company, he's not trying to pass himself off as some kind of
>>moral leader.
>
>
>Of course, Microsoft Religion v1.0 should be out sometime in early
>2003.
Yeah, but it won't be a viable worldview until v3.0 comes out in 2009.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk -- quirk @ swcp.com | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
Retired 'Secret Master of | superior to what I have now."
rec.arts.startrek' | -- Gym Quirk
Clint
What a weasel. Based on the above, I can conclude that Bill Gates
is not religious, but likes religious principles. Geez, Bill, you
should run for political office.
---
Please not that.
Todd Adamson - tada...@netins.net #1114
**************************************
* Now I just want to thank you *
* for going insane *
* Every moment you suffer *
* is a loss that I gain *
* Every breath is drain down *
* down into a hole *
* And your mind is a shrinking thing *
* It was crushed by your skull *
* *
* - SWANS *
**************************************
mantikor
rrcrumb
rrc
Jim F. <deb...@gis.net> wrote in message
news:01be7398$cfea13c0$fa1e29d8@debfar...
>
>
> rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> <RM4J2.6296$lm.37...@news2.mia>...
> > I always figured he is an atheist.
> > Nathan Myrvoldd [sp] sure seems like one.
> >
> > And yes,it does make me think less
> > of them and......
> > YES,it explains why he does some of the things
> > he does.
> >
> I always thought that the explanation for why Bill Gates does
> the things that he does is because he is a monopoly capitalist.
>
>
> Jim F.
>
> >
> > rrc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Matt Miller <matm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.115e2a90c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> > > In article <36f43691...@news.u.washington.edu>,
> > > da...@u.washington.edu says...
> > > > "Gremlin" <ad...@gremlin.net> wrote:
> > > > >Xalan wrote in message <7bpd3p$euq$1...@starburst.uk.insnet.net>...
> > > >
> > > > >>Ed I suppose all your praying as usual hasn't paid off then. I
> > remember you
> > > > >>stated once that God solves all, maybe that exclude IE4. Instead
of
> > relying
> > > > >>on faith in the future why don't you do the sensible thing and
> invest
> > in a
> > > > >>backup device. Physical tends to be more useful than mystical.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Xalan
> > > > >
> > > > >Bill Gates claims to be an atheist; maybe there's a connexion
there.
> > > >
> > > > Geez, I thought he claimed to be god ;^)
> > > > Seriously, though, where did he claim to
> > > > be an atheist?
> > >
> > > From the Celebrity Atheist List
> > > http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/atheistcelebs/
> > >
> > >
> > > Gates was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David
> > > Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits.
> > >
> > > Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?
> > >
> > > Gates: I don't. I'm not somebody who goes to church on a
> > > regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not
> > > something I'm a huge believer in. There's a lot of merit in
> > > the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very
> > > positive impact.
> > >
> > > Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a
> > > god, or do you know there is a god? And, you'd say you
> > > don't know?
> > >
> > > Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific
> > > approach to why things happen and how they happen. I
> > > don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious
> > > principles are quite valid.
> > >
> > > --RK
> > >
> > > ----
rrcrumb
Bad way to argue.
rrc
Craig Dowell <c...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:7d694c$c9f$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> >I always figured he [Bill Gates] is an atheist.
> >Nathan Myrvoldd [sp] sure seems like one.
> >
> >And yes,it does make me think less
> >of them and......
> >YES,it explains why he does some of the things
> >he does.
>
> Uh, huh. As opposed, of course, to the right God fearing ministers of the
> gospel who convince little old ladies to send them their last dimes as
> "love gifts" and then spend the cash on a seventh mink-upolstered Rolls-
> Royce.
mantikor
>>
>>Of course, Microsoft Religion v1.0 should be out sometime in early
>>2003.
>
I'm just hanging out to see what happens when catholics upgrade and
the pope goes down with a blue screen (instead of with a choirboy like
normal).
Jon Skeet
> noooooo agnostics aren't religious or atheist. we are 50/50. we believe
> that something is there, but don't know what it is for certain and we
> have no religious affilition.
Agnostics don't have to believe there is anything "there": they merely
have to believe there isn't enough evidence to say either way.
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: Agnostics don't have to believe there is anything "there": they merely
: have to believe there isn't enough evidence to say either way.
That is the pedestrian definition, but the accurate one would be that
agnostics don't believe that any evidence re: the existence/non-existence
of god or gods *can* be known.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
John Smith
religion 1.0 that lasts another 4-5 years until Microsoft religion is
integrated into the OS and kills off its competition.
Mantikor wrote:
>
> >More importantly, who gives a damn? I can't imagine why anyone would care
> >what religious beliefs he holds, or does not hold. He runs a freakin'
> >software company, he's not trying to pass himself off as some kind of
> >moral leader.
>
> Yet.
>
> Of course, Microsoft Religion v1.0 should be out sometime in early
> 2003.
--
John Smith
agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
as a civilization.
Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:21:38 -0800, John Smith
> <agtof...@softhome.net> chose to bless us all with this bit of
> wisdom:
>
> >what's wrong with being an agnostic? it is the only moderate side in the
> >religious/atheist war. both religious and atheist type people are stupid
> >when it comes to that topic because they are so fuckin arrogant cuz they
> >think that they know it all. Atleast agnostics admit that they have no
> >religion and don't know what is there.
>
> Straddling the fence is an uncomfortable position for a man who still
> has his testicles.
>
> >mike wrote:
> >> It somewhat surprised me to find out he was agnostic, even though he's obvously
> >> quite intelligent. Come to think of it, like every preist I have laid eyes upon
> >> is more apt to be a greedy bastard.
> >>
> >> -mike#1375
> >>
> >> > rrc
>
> "That is not dead which can eternal lie,
> And with strange aeons even death may die."
> - Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
mike
John Smith wrote:
> that is a poor comeback. Why should we have to choose sides? I am an
> agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
> can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
> somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
> as a civilization.
I would tend to agree, especially since it's such an insignificant thing. [bias bias
etc.]
if the fence were lower, things are okay.
Max F Lang
> >a rabble rousing bible-thumper type.
>
> I thought it was supposed to be some European Jew?
Whatever. So he's going to thump on a copy of the Torah.
MFLang
David C. Wright
sk...@pobox.com (Jon Skeet) wrote:
>
>without believing in any power higher than itself.
Why would a god need to believe in a god unless it was a greater god than
itself, and thus a "higher power"? If belief in itself constitutes theism,
then I might claim to be theist on the basis that I believe in myself, and
that would be accurate insofar as I chose to not believe in a "higher"
power. However, by conventional definition, a refusal to believe in a
higher power would be called 'atheism'.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
I'm not sure how clouds get formed, but the clouds know how to do it,
and that is the important thing - Weather Flashes, David Phillips.
David C. Wright
"Donald Tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
>No, you said "does not believe in a higher power". I believe in decency,
>kindness, justice ... I believe in many higher powers and a balance between
>them. I do not believe in a specific god.
Then you would be agnostic. You believe in a higher power, but simply do
not subcribe to the notion of any particular god.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
Sic gorgiamos allos subjectatos nunc - The Addams Family Motto
(Gladly we feast on those who would subdue us)
Shea F. Kenny
announced:
}In group alt.fan.bill-gates, article <7ddd89$ihv$1...@news.igs.net>,
}"Donald Tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
}>No, you said "does not believe in a higher power". I believe in decency,
}>kindness, justice ... I believe in many higher powers and a balance between
}>them. I do not believe in a specific god.
}
}Then you would be agnostic. You believe in a higher power, but simply do
}not subcribe to the notion of any particular god.
Perhaps he should appear before us all, and give thanks.
--
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
World elevator wrestling champion
This has been, Lunar Network News
ICQ# 31930333
(No e-mail replies from newsgroups, thanks!)
John Varela
> that is a poor comeback. Why should we have to choose sides? I am an
> agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
> can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
> somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
> as a civilization.
Then I believe that makes you not an agnostic, but a deist.
--
John Varela
(delete . between mind and spring to e-mail me)
Shea F. Kenny
announced:
}On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 04:15:48, John Smith <agtof...@softhome.net> wrote:
}
}> that is a poor comeback. Why should we have to choose sides? I am an
}> agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
}> can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
}> somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
}> as a civilization.
}
}Then I believe that makes you not an agnostic, but a deist.
Idiotic John. A Diest has the firm belief that whatever God there is,
is concerned with the survivability of man. Civilization, is the greatest
assurance of that survival. Only an agnostic would conclude, the Gods don't
really care.
Elf Sternberg
jva...@mind.spring.com (John Varela) writes:
>On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 04:15:48, John Smith <agtof...@softhome.net> wrote:
>> that is a poor comeback. Why should we have to choose sides? I am an
>> agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
>> can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
>> somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
>> as a civilization.
>Then I believe that makes you not an agnostic, but a deist.
It's possible to be both. An agnostic, according to Thomas
Huxley (who founded agnosticism as a philosophical position) is one
who does not believe it's possible to know anything about god or
gods. Deism, in contrast, is the *belief* in an abstract god. It's
legitimate to believe there's something "out there" even if you don't
think it's possible to actually know anything about it. The formal
term for this is "credo consolans," "I believe because that belief
comforts me."
In the interest of being pedantic, I should point out that
Huxley was both an agnostic and an atheist; he said that it was
immoral to believe in anything for which you did not have evidence and
evidence of god, Huxley believed, was impossible. Some modern
scholars maintain that Huxley crafted agnosticism mostly as a sort of
dodge to avoid the label of "atheist", seeing as it was (and still is)
a "dirty word" among the believers who make up the vast majority of
the population.
There is also debate in some circles as to whether or not
formal agnosticism can even be considered legitimate. The position
that god is unknowable is, in fact, knowledge about god-- that god is
unknowable! These sorts of paradoxes make agnosticism an unstable
position indeed.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
If you're so smart, why aren't you naked?
A.A 1493 http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Jim F.
Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote in article
<7dkvus$4ph$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>
> It's possible to be both. An agnostic, according to Thomas
> Huxley (who founded agnosticism as a philosophical position) is one
> who does not believe it's possible to know anything about god or
> gods. Deism, in contrast, is the *belief* in an abstract god. It's
> legitimate to believe there's something "out there" even if you don't
> think it's possible to actually know anything about it. The formal
> term for this is "credo consolans," "I believe because that belief
> comforts me."
>
> In the interest of being pedantic, I should point out that
> Huxley was both an agnostic and an atheist; he said that it was
> immoral to believe in anything for which you did not have evidence and
> evidence of god, Huxley believed, was impossible. Some modern
> scholars maintain that Huxley crafted agnosticism mostly as a sort of
> dodge to avoid the label of "atheist", seeing as it was (and still is)
> a "dirty word" among the believers who make up the vast majority of
> the population.
I am inclined to believe those scholars who contend that Huxley devised the
term "agnostic" as an alternative to the label "atheist." Back in Huxley's
day,
to be a professed atheist, was to condemn oneself to unrespectability.
Ever
since the French Revolutiom, public opinion associated atheism with support
for
revolutionary politics. An atheist was not only godless but was seen as a
political subversive, an enemy of the established order. Huxley went a
long way
towards making unbelief respectable in Britain. Following the lead of
Huxley
(and Darwin), agnosticism soon became popular among Britain's "intellectual
aristocracy" a trend that has continued in this century when people like
Bertrand
Russell proclaimed themselves to be agnostics. Among the elites,
agnosticism
became a respectable alternative to Anglicanism, and it would appear that
it has
even made inroads within the Church of England itself.
Jim F.
Donald Tees
> There is also debate in some circles as to whether or not
>formal agnosticism can even be considered legitimate. The position
>that god is unknowable is, in fact, knowledge about god-- that god is
>unknowable! These sorts of paradoxes make agnosticism an unstable
>position indeed.
>
how many angels can fit on the head of a pin for a few hundred years, but it
is infinitely more productive.
lee...@kettering.edu
> In <36fadc81...@news.xtra.co.nz> on alt.folklore.computers,
> mantikor @ hotmail.com (Mantikor) allegedly proclaimed:
> >>More importantly, who gives a damn? I can't imagine why anyone would care
> >>what religious beliefs he holds, or does not hold. He runs a freakin'
> >>software company, he's not trying to pass himself off as some kind of
> >>moral leader.
> >
> >Yet.
> >
> >Of course, Microsoft Religion v1.0 should be out sometime in early
> >2003.
>
> Yeah, but it won't be a viable worldview until v3.0 comes out in 2009.
Actually, I thought MS was going to label it's original offering "v3".
____________________________________________________________________________
|
"A little nonsense now and then, | "If it walks out of the fridge, let
Is relished by the wisest men." | it go" -- John Dougherty
--W.W. | "If it loves you it will come back."
| -- Ian Davis
__________________________________|_________________________________________
Theta Xi
Kappa Sigma
Jessica M. Wolfman
>And after just one sip of Flambrosia, jva...@mind.spring.com (John Varela)
>announced:
>}On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 04:15:48, John Smith <agtof...@softhome.net> wrote:
>}
>}> that is a poor comeback. Why should we have to choose sides? I am an
>}> agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
>}> can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
>}> somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
>}> as a civilization.
>}
>}Then I believe that makes you not an agnostic, but a deist.
>
> Idiotic John. A Diest has the firm belief that whatever God there is,
>is concerned with the survivability of man. Civilization, is the greatest
>assurance of that survival. Only an agnostic would conclude, the Gods don't
>really care.
Deists don't believe in a personal deity, but rather one who simply started
things off and then bowed out. Agnostics say it's impossible to know if a god --
a personal one or not -- actually exists.
>--
>Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
>World elevator wrestling champion
>This has been, Lunar Network News
>ICQ# 31930333
>(No e-mail replies from newsgroups, thanks!)
>
Jessica Wolfman
sa #1002
"All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions."
--Adlai E. Stevenson
The Adventurers Guild
http://members.tripod.com/~theguild
Replace nospam.com with boo <dot> net to reply via email.
Shea F. Kenny
announced:
}On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:01:59 GMT, luna...@ncfweb.net (Shea F. Kenny) wrote:
}
}>And after just one sip of Flambrosia, jva...@mind.spring.com (John Varela)
}>announced:
}>}On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 04:15:48, John Smith <agtof...@softhome.net> wrote:
}>}
}>}> that is a poor comeback. Why should we have to choose sides? I am an
}>}> agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
}>}> can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
}>}> somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
}>}> as a civilization.
}>}
}>}Then I believe that makes you not an agnostic, but a deist.
}>
}> Idiotic John. A Diest has the firm belief that whatever God there is,
}>is concerned with the survivability of man. Civilization, is the greatest
}>assurance of that survival. Only an agnostic would conclude, the Gods don't
}>really care.
}
}Deists don't believe in a personal deity, but rather one who simply started
}things off and then bowed out. Agnostics say it's impossible to know if a god --
}a personal one or not -- actually exists.
I didn't say anything about a personal God, first of all. Secondly,
where do the diests concepts of order come from? Created by man I suppose?
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-24 don...@willmack.com said:
:David C. Wright wrote in message ...
:>Besides, insofar as an atheist does not believe in a higher power,
:>a god must, perforce, be atheist.
:No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
To a flea, a dog is a god. But does the dog consider himself that way?
Is it even particularly delighted by the worshipful attention of so many
fleas?
--
Communa (lis...@zetnet.co.uk) -- yes, it's another round of spot-the-point
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-24 sang...@KOSHERsanglier.freeserve.co.uk said:
:Greg Menke wrote in message ...
:>Its not the atheist part, its the Bill Gates part....
:Well, how likely *is* the Antichrist to be a devoted churchgoer?
A reasonable number of his followers have been, so it's not
inconceivable he'd find a welcome. ;>
--
Communa (lis...@zetnet.co.uk) -- you know soft spoken changes nothing
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-24 agtof...@softhome.net said:
:what's wrong with being an agnostic? it is the only moderate side
:in the religious/atheist war. both religious and atheist type
:people are stupid when it comes to that topic because they are so
:fuckin arrogant cuz they think that they know it all. Atleast
:agnostics admit that they have no religion and don't know what is
:there.
????
A clue, sweetie. Atheism isn't an extreme position. I'm an atheist, but
I'm not extreme about it or even claiming that there are no gods. I just
don't see any entity I can worship as a god, or even say "that's a god"
about. What's extreme about that?
No, the really stupid thing is to mischaracterise the opinions of whole
swathes of people without taking the time to think through the issues
involved. Agnosticism is not ignorance, whatever makes you feel happier.
--
Communa (lis...@zetnet.co.uk) -- you know soft spoken changes nothing
Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive
Jessica M. Wolfman
>And after just one sip of Flambrosia, wolf...@nospam.com (Jessica M. Wolfman)
>announced:
>}On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 08:01:59 GMT, luna...@ncfweb.net (Shea F. Kenny) wrote:
>}
>}>And after just one sip of Flambrosia, jva...@mind.spring.com (John Varela)
>}>announced:
>}>}On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 04:15:48, John Smith <agtof...@softhome.net> wrote:
>}>}
>}>}> that is a poor comeback. Why should we have to choose sides? I am an
>}>}> agnostic that believes that there is something there, but I believe we
>}>}> can never know for certain what form it takes. The only thing we can be
>}>}> somewhat sure of is that whatever is there really doesn't care about us
>}>}> as a civilization.
>}>}
>}>}Then I believe that makes you not an agnostic, but a deist.
>}>
>}> Idiotic John. A Diest has the firm belief that whatever God there is,
>}>is concerned with the survivability of man. Civilization, is the greatest
>}>assurance of that survival. Only an agnostic would conclude, the Gods don't
>}>really care.
>}
>}Deists don't believe in a personal deity, but rather one who simply started
>}things off and then bowed out. Agnostics say it's impossible to know if a god --
>}a personal one or not -- actually exists.
>
> I didn't say anything about a personal God, first of all.
Yes you did. You said that "a Deist has the firm belief that whatever God there
is, is concerned with the survivability of man". A god that is concerned with
man at *all* is a personal god.
>Secondly,
>where do the diests concepts of order come from? Created by man I suppose?
Of course. Just like theistic, atheistic, gnostic, and agnostic concepts of
order.
>--
>Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
>World elevator wrestling champion
>This has been, Lunar Network News
>ICQ# 31930333
>(No e-mail replies from newsgroups, thanks!)
>
Jessica Wolfman
Jon Skeet
> Why would a god need to believe in a god unless it was a greater god than
> itself, and thus a "higher power"? If belief in itself constitutes theism,
> then I might claim to be theist on the basis that I believe in myself, and
> that would be accurate insofar as I chose to not believe in a "higher"
> power. However, by conventional definition, a refusal to believe in a
> higher power would be called 'atheism'.
No, I don't believe so. If *you* don't believe in yourself, that's not
denying the existence of a god. If a *god* didn't believe in itself, that
would.
Belief in oneself only constitutes theism when one is a god.
Jon Skeet
> In the interest of being pedantic, I should point out that
> Huxley was both an agnostic and an atheist; he said that it was
> immoral to believe in anything for which you did not have evidence and
> evidence of god, Huxley believed, was impossible.
I don't see that the above necessarily makes him an atheist. I see an
atheist as someone who believes there is *no* god, rather than one who
doesn't believe there *is* a god, if you see what I mean.
ethhoack ethandphi exbeess
http://torpedoes.enemy.org/dms
ethh
key id & fp: 7579B421 7D 29 B3 3A CB 2D 42 B1 DE F3 19 D6 18 F6 C5 55
http://torpedoes.enemy.org
"don't take your brain for granted ... it's the best friend you'll ever have."
lisa simpson
Donald Tees
Jon Skeet wrote in message ...
>
>No, I don't believe so. If *you* don't believe in yourself, that's not
>denying the existence of a god. If a *god* didn't believe in itself, that
>would.
>
>Belief in oneself only constitutes theism when one is a god.
>
a god does not mean that you agree with him/her.
Elf Sternberg
sk...@pobox.com (Jon Skeet) writes:
>e...@halcyon.com wrote:
>
>> In the interest of being pedantic, I should point out that
>> Huxley was both an agnostic and an atheist; he said that it was
>> immoral to believe in anything for which you did not have evidence and
>> evidence of god, Huxley believed, was impossible.
>I don't see that the above necessarily makes him an atheist. I see an
>atheist as someone who believes there is *no* god, rather than one who
>doesn't believe there *is* a god, if you see what I mean.
Atheism is the antipodal postition of someone who believes in
a god; it is someone who *lacks* that belief. That's the formal
position used by scholars and writers because it allows for
dialectical reasoning. There are some who, having looked at the
evidence presented by a religion and found it wanting, feel it's safe
to say "There is no God" as defined by that religion. But simple
atheism is the skeptical default position; when someone says "There is
a Loch Ness Monster!" or "There is a god!" the skeptic says "Really?
And what evidence do you have to support that?"
The theism/atheism question is framed, "Do you believe there
is *any* supernatural influence being exerted in our lives?" The
theist says yes and then begins to give it attributes and call it God;
the atheist says no ("I do not believe") and then methodically,
reasonably, rejects the theists' reasoning if asked to do so.
This is why "agnosticism" can't be used as a wishy-washy sort
of middle ground. The man who invented the word never meant it it be
used as it is used in popular thought today and many who use it that
way might be surprised and upset to learn that they're actually
atheists, given that "atheist" is such a dirty word. Agnosticism is
about *knowledge* of god; theism/atheism is about belief in god.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, rational romantic mystical cynical idealist
e...@halcyon.com: A Decade of Usenet: On-line since August 18, 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss has looked into me.
Neither liked what we saw.
--- Brother Theodore
Ben Hutchings
: e...@halcyon.com wrote:
: > In the interest of being pedantic, I should point out that
: > Huxley was both an agnostic and an atheist; he said that it was
: > immoral to believe in anything for which you did not have evidence and
: > evidence of god, Huxley believed, was impossible.
: I don't see that the above necessarily makes him an atheist. I see an
: atheist as someone who believes there is *no* god, rather than one who
: doesn't believe there *is* a god, if you see what I mean.
Those two positions are sometimes called `strong atheism' and `weak
atheism', respectively.
--
Any opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of Laser-Scan.
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: > In the interest of being pedantic, I should point out that
: > Huxley was both an agnostic and an atheist; he said that it was
: > immoral to believe in anything for which you did not have evidence and
: > evidence of god, Huxley believed, was impossible.
: I don't see that the above necessarily makes him an atheist. I see an
: atheist as someone who believes there is *no* god, rather than one who
: doesn't believe there *is* a god, if you see what I mean.
We do see what you mean, but what *you* do and do not consider to be an
atheist is immaterial. An atheist lacks theism -- that's the beginning
and end of it.
You'll learn more by asking us how we see ourselves than you will by
telling us what we are -- one *always* learns more by asking than by
telling.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
ethhoack ethandphi exbeess
> Atheism is the antipodal postition of someone who believes in
> a god; it is someone who *lacks* that belief. That's the formal
> position used by scholars and writers because it allows for
> dialectical reasoning. There are some who, having looked at the
> evidence presented by a religion and found it wanting, feel it's safe
> to say "There is no God" as defined by that religion. But simple
> atheism is the skeptical default position; when someone says "There is
> a Loch Ness Monster!" or "There is a god!" the skeptic says "Really?
> And what evidence do you have to support that?"
no. the atheist is the one who believes there is no god. the guy who asks for
evidence and admits not knowing is an agnostic.
Elf Sternberg
>no. the atheist is the one who believes there is no god. the guy who asks for
>evidence and admits not knowing is an agnostic.
That isn't what Huxley (the man who invented 'agnosticism')
meant. If you say "there is no god," I'm forced to ask you which god
you mean.
Even if you "admit to not knowing," (which is an intellectual
position), it doesn't cover your commitment to the belief in god
(which is an emotional commitment). You can still be skeptical of the
claims of any one religion and still believe there is some
supernatural agency (an agnostic theist, or deist), or be skeptical
and not believe there is some supernatural agency (an agnostic
naturalist, also an atheist).
According to the dictionary definition of agnostic, it is one
who holds that "any ultimate reality is unknown and unknowable." This
is still about knowing whether or not God exists; it doesn't cover the
issue of faith ond belief.
Atheism is the opposite of theism: theism is the "belief in a
god or gods,"; atheism is literally a-theism, 'a' from the Greek for
'without' or 'lacking'. 'A-theism': 'without a belief in god or
gods.'
The positive claim, "There is no god!" is a pretty arrogant
thing to claim; it's equivalent to saying that you've searched the
whole universe and still not found anything approaching godhood. Most
of us atheists leave that kind of hubris to theists. It's impossible
to prove that something does not exist. Can you prove that Santa
Claus doesn't exist?
On the other hand, having looked at the evidence for Jehovah /
Jesus / Allah and have reached the conclusion that it's safe to live
as if that one, at any rate, is not real. While nobody can say for
certain that such a being does not exist, his followers make claims as
to his powers, properties, and past activities, and when these claims
fail to hold up under close examination, the likelihood of their
truthfulness, and his existence, drops precipitously.
In many ways, the atheist position is simple: "Prove it to
me." The agnostic has a harder row to hoe: "Prove to me that it's
even possible to be proven at all. Then, prove it to me."
Elf
--
Peter Seebach
> The positive claim, "There is no god!" is a pretty arrogant
>thing to claim; it's equivalent to saying that you've searched the
>whole universe and still not found anything approaching godhood. Most
>of us atheists leave that kind of hubris to theists.
What label do you use for the people who hold that belief? It's irritating
not having enough terms. It would be nice to have a name for the class of
people who believe specifically that there is no God, and to whom this is a
point of dogma. I have taken to calling these people "religious atheists",
but this is fairly ambiguous. The intent is to describe the way in which,
to some set of people, the nonexistance of God is a belief to which others
must be converted. Theists of any sort are seen as heretics, misguided,
stupid, and otherwise needing of correction. It's the opposite of religious
theism, as opposed to its complement.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-27 wri...@autobahn.mb.ca said:
:"Donald Tees" <don...@willmack.com> wrote:
:>No, you said "does not believe in a higher power". I believe in
:>decency, kindness, justice ... I believe in many higher powers and
:>a balance between them. I do not believe in a specific god.
:Then you would be agnostic. You believe in a higher power, but
:simply do not subcribe to the notion of any particular god.
Bollocks. Check the dictionary definitions of agnosticism. I don't think
anything about a "higher power" comes in anywhere. Be very careful about
your definitions; after all, you've just specified that anyone who holds
any kind of principles cannot be an atheist.
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-28 e...@halcyon.com(ElfSternberg) said:
:There is also debate in some circles as to whether or not
:formal agnosticism can even be considered legitimate. The position
:that god is unknowable is, in fact, knowledge about god-- that god
:is unknowable! These sorts of paradoxes make agnosticism an
:unstable position indeed.
It's not a statement about any god, it's a statement about human
perceptions and abilities, and the nature of the universe in which we
live. Possibly the term "unknowable" should be replaced (for clarity)
with "unverifiable"; eg. there will always be people who claim direct
knowledge, direct mystical experience of something they are happiest to
call "God", and I for one am not comfortable telling them that they are
either insane or lying - but on the other hand, I would not want their
claim of knowledge to put me under any obligation of acceptance.
Agnosticism was conceived in a rationalistic / scientific climate, as
you point out yourself. Therefore, it makes sense to apply a scientific
context to the term "unknowable" in the definition you supply - and to a
scientist, if it can't be verified it can't be known. Witness the cold
fusion fiasco of a few years ago for another demonstration.
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-28 don...@willmack.com said:
:The position of "bugger off and go away" may be less stable than
:debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin for a few
:hundred years, but it is infinitely more productive.
It is, however, tautologous. *gd&r*
Michael Davies
> In article <7dod9a$e7q$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> > The positive claim, "There is no god!" is a pretty arrogant
> >thing to claim; it's equivalent to saying that you've searched the
> >whole universe and still not found anything approaching godhood. Most
> >of us atheists leave that kind of hubris to theists.
>
> What label do you use for the people who hold that belief? It's irritating
> not having enough terms. It would be nice to have a name for the class of
> people who believe specifically that there is no God, and to whom this is a
> point of dogma.
Their thesis is the antithesis of that of the theists thus they are antitheists.
Try saying that six times...
--
Michael Davies
mi...@l-a-m-m-a-s.com
Mattheq
Seebach) wrote:
> What label do you use for the people who hold that belief?
Strong atheists.
Mattheq
--
"And then, one Thursday nearly two thousand years after one man had been
nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a
change..." http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/9079/ Drop in!
IA i^8 His Holiness, Pope Mattheq I
Mattheq
> You'll learn more by asking us how we see ourselves than you will by
> telling us what we are -- one *always* learns more by asking than by
> telling.
Unless you tell someone to tell you something.
Elf Sternberg
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes:
>In article <7dod9a$e7q$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, Elf Sternberg <e...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>> The positive claim, "There is no god!" is a pretty arrogant
>>thing to claim; it's equivalent to saying that you've searched the
>>whole universe and still not found anything approaching godhood. Most
>>of us atheists leave that kind of hubris to theists.
>What label do you use for the people who hold that belief?
By definition, both those who simply don't believe and those
who believe there is no god, do not have a belief in god. They are
both still atheists. By convention, the latter are called "strong
atheists," although other terms include "hard atheists," "positive
atheists," "dogmatic atheists" or even (horrors!) "evangelical
atheists."
There are other terms. "Apathetic atheism" is acting as if
god or gods don't exist because you don't have enough emotional
investment to care either way. "Noncoherent atheism" is the position
that one cannot make meaningful statements about "god" because there
is no majority consensus about what "god" means.
Skeptical atheism holds that the finite human mind cannot
discover if there is a god or not; this is more or less atheistic
agnosticism. Critical atheism is more an activity of demonstrating
why a given theistic position is inherently inconsistent, conflicted,
unnatural or immoral-- an activity engaged in often on alt.atheism.
*Sigh* Philosophical atheism is similar to critical atheism but uses
universal arguments to establish whether or not there are
methodological reasons to deny an existence of god. Speculative
atheism is made up of those people who are not so incredulous to
accept theistic arguments at face value.
More than you wanted to know, eh?
Shea F. Kenny
}
}Yes you did. You said that "a Deist has the firm belief that whatever God there
}is, is concerned with the survivability of man". A god that is concerned with
}man at *all* is a personal god.
I see. Well, let's just define personal, any ol way we please......
}
}>Secondly,
}>where do the diests concepts of order come from? Created by man I suppose?
}
}Of course. Just like theistic, atheistic, gnostic, and agnostic concepts of
}order.
I'm talking about social orders, not religious or anti-religious. Like
those bound in our constitution. Those the founders believed, were created by
God and given to man to effect law, order and a free society.
Jim Barrett
>BILL GATES IS THE ANTECHRIST
Bill existed before Christ? He certainly doesn't show his age...
JB
dotcom
Typo. It's supposed to be "Auntiechrist". Bill ain't telling us everything.
dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
There is no god worth our worship.
Martin Schlottmann
Kin Hoong CHUNG
: Agnosticism was conceived in a rationalistic / scientific climate, as
: you point out yourself. Therefore, it makes sense to apply a scientific
: context to the term "unknowable" in the definition you supply - and to a
: scientist, if it can't be verified it can't be known. Witness the cold
: fusion fiasco of a few years ago for another demonstration.
No! The cold fusion fiasco can be described as "it cannot be reproduced,
ergo it does not exist." Science depends heavily on statistical
reproducibility (which is why most scientists do at least 3 experiments
and usually many many more---you can't do statistics on less than 3
experiments). I still remember the hullabaloo, what with all the physicists
chanting "where are the neutrons?" and "in our attempts to replicate it,
we found xxx, yyy, zzz which could explain the extra heat generated,"
and I seem to remember something about the explosions being caused by a
combination of heat from the palladium catalysing the reaction between
deuterium and oxygen, and the interstices in the forged (they even found
a difference between forged and cast palladium) palladium allowing D_2 to
form etc.
As far as I can tell, this position is one of refusing to believe anything
that one does not have a controlled experiment for, which is more consistent
with atheism than agnosticism, it may even be more extreme than some atheists'
positions on the matter.
Cheers,
Kin Hoong
Stephen H. Kawamoto
Buddha organization.
And guess which religious organization is well known for its antipathy
towards 'pagan' faiths, sending missionaries into China prior to the civil
war between Maoists and fascist Nationalists?
I'm not quite sure but I think gates is nominally Catholic. But his hash
smoking should ban him from JWs and Mormons. I wonder if his wife is
religious. She fancied rock from out east.
But the anti-Buddhist faction isn't against Buddhism per-se, jus the fact
that the chanting disturbs nerds who rent houses nearby.
Makes me wonder who the real fanatics are.
Hugh Davies wrote:
> Err, who cares?
>
> --
> "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
> The uk.transport FAQ; http://www.axalotl.demon.co.uk/transport/FAQ.html
> [Substitute "axalotl" for "nospam" to email me]
--
----Begin Geek Code Block----
G!/O C++>$ dpu s--|-- a+ P-- L + c- W+ N++ o-- K- w PS++
PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5 x R* !tv b+++ DI++ G e h-- r- y+>-
-----End Geek Code Block-----
Elf Sternberg
> :There is also debate in some circles as to whether or not
> :formal agnosticism can even be considered legitimate. The position
> :that god is unknowable is, in fact, knowledge about god-- that god
> :is unknowable!
>It's not a statement about any god, it's a statement about human
>perceptions and abilities, and the nature of the universe in which we
>live.
Hmm. I still think this casts the claim as a relationship
between Man and God, and is still demonstrating knowledge about God.
But it's a good point, one worth considering. Who knows; you may yet
restore agnosticism to a position of intellectual respectability.
>Possibly the term "unknowable" should be replaced (for clarity)
>with "unverifiable";
I don't think that's an appropriate substitution; what you've
said is that revelation is possible but consensus on the meaning of
revelation isn't. In this case, Professor Huxley would argue that it
isn't knowledge at all since it can't be shared with any claim to
verifiability.
>I for one am not comfortable telling them that they are either insane
>or lying - but on the other hand, I would not want their claim of
>knowledge to put me under any obligation of acceptance.
It's hearsay anyway; you're not obligated to believe it. I
rarely tell people they're crazy, but if I'm convinced they are crazy
I tend to put at least a large table between us.
Phil Edwards
> There is also debate in some circles as to whether or not
> formal agnosticism can even be considered legitimate. The position
> that god is unknowable is, in fact, knowledge about god-- that god
Hold it right there. *What* paradoxes?
"God is unknowable" is a statement about God; it asserts that God has
the attribute of unknowability. Xtians do in fact assert this to
varying degrees. It's an ontological statement; it assumes that there
is a God about whom it's possible to make statements.
"The existence (or otherwise) of God is unknowable" is a statement
about the existence (or otherwise) of God. It's an epistemological
statement - a statement about what one can know. In other words, it
doesn't break down in the same way as the first statement - there's no
implicit 'thing' called 'the existence of God' which has to exist
before you can make a statement about it.
Which probably doesn't make matters any clearer, but I had to say it.
Phil
--
Phil Edwards http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/
"Let the good Lord do the driving" - Jon Langford
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-30 khc...@maths.unsw.edu.au said:
::...if it can't be verified it can't be
::known. Witness the cold fusion fiasco of a few years ago for
::another demonstration.
:No! The cold fusion fiasco can be described as "it cannot be
:reproduced, ergo it does not exist." Science depends heavily on
:statistical reproducibility (which is why most scientists do at
:least 3 experiments and usually many many more---you can't do
:statistics on less than 3 experiments).
I rather formed the impression that the jury was still out on it - that
it was widely regarded as a fraud, but they may have found something
(although almost certainly not what they thought they'd found).
[detail 8<'d]
Those bits suggest that in fact quite a lot of work was put into
verification. When it comes down to it, scientists want to increase the
sum of human knowledge - but if you can't verify someone else's theory,
what possible use can it be to humanity in general? It can't be added to
the box of "known things", but only to the box of "try this and see if
it works for you" solutions, sharing such distinguished company as
Christianity, Freudian analysis and Lilian Pinkham's Universally
Applicatious Remedy - and indeed, now cold fusion as well.
(As ever, those people who have tried one of the panaceas alluded to and
found that it does work for them appear to have found that their lungs
and voices have derived the most benefit from it.)
Verification is not the scientific process in itself - but it is the
part of it that gives the whole process its credibility, the part that
lifts a theory from a speculation of an individual to an item of
knowledge common to humanity.
:As far as I can tell, this position is one of refusing to believe
:anything that one does not have a controlled experiment for, which
:is more consistent with atheism than agnosticism, it may even be
:more extreme than some atheists' positions on the matter.
No. It's a question of "what is knowledge?" - agnosticism as a position
is tenable only in a scientific climate, where one of the basic
qualifications of the term "knowledge" is verifiability - one might even
say shareability; the ability to agree on a form independent of its
perception (for the Kantians). Deities are notoriously perception-
dependent forms.
But then, whilst one cannot verify the existence of a god, one can
equally well not verify the non-existence of one. ;> It's a matter of
perception - and I can't perceive any deities around me, no matter what
my sister thinks she can perceive.
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-29 e...@halcyon.com(ElfSternberg) said:
:et...@enemy.org (ethhoack ethandphi exbeess) writes:
:>no. the atheist is the one who believes there is no god. the guy
:>who asks for evidence and admits not knowing is an agnostic.
:According to the dictionary definition of agnostic, it is one
:who holds that "any ultimate reality is unknown and unknowable."
:This is still about knowing whether or not God exists; it doesn't
:cover the issue of faith ond belief.
Sounds more like Kantianism than agnosticism. ;>
[arrogance of "There is no god"]
:Most of us atheists leave that kind of hubris to theists. It's
:impossible to prove that something does not exist.
Assume that there is a number P(n), which is the largest prime number.
Then calculate the number Q = 2.3.5.7.11......P(n-1).P(n) + 1. Q is
not divisible by any of 2...P(n), always having a remainder of 1;
therefore it must also be prime, which violates our initial assumption.
I would have taken more care in putting these two sentences together.
:On the other hand, having looked at the evidence for Jehovah /
:Jesus / Allah and have reached the conclusion that it's safe to live
:as if that one, at any rate, is not real. While nobody can say for
:certain that such a being does not exist, his followers make claims
:as to his powers, properties, and past activities, and when these
:claims fail to hold up under close examination, the likelihood of
:their truthfulness, and his existence, drops precipitously.
Oddly enough, even an agnostic can draw conclusions about the logicality
of an argument. When a belief system is riven through with contradiction
and inconsistency, I think you'd have trouble persuading most agnostics
to accept it.
:In many ways, the atheist position is simple: "Prove it to
:me." The agnostic has a harder row to hoe: "Prove to me that it's
:even possible to be proven at all. Then, prove it to me."
No, it's not a harder row, it just makes one less assumption. It just
requests one more level of proof. And let's face it, it's quite possible
to be both agnostic and (weakly) atheistic, simultaneously; I am. And it
gives the theist more work, too; first they have to prove knowability.
If one grants a theist knowability, half the work is done.
lis...@zetnet.co.uk
On 1999-03-29 se...@plethora.net(PeterSeebach) said:
:What label do you use for the people who hold that belief? It's
:irritating not having enough terms. It would be nice to have a
:name for the class of people who believe specifically that there is
:no God, and to whom this is a point of dogma. I have taken to
:calling these people "religious atheists", but this is fairly
:ambiguous.
*giggle* Someone once described me as a fundamentalist relativist. I
enjoyed that description. I might put it in my sig. ;>
Who cares
sk...@pobox.com (Jon Skeet) wrote:
...
>No, I don't believe so. If *you* don't believe in yourself, that's not
>denying the existence of a god. If a *god* didn't believe in itself, that
>would.
>
>Belief in oneself only constitutes theism when one is a god.
That is the point. If His Billness considers himself a God, then, if he
believes in himself, he is a theist. On the other hand, if theism
predicates a belief in a higher power, than even a God must believe in a
higher God to be a theist, and it is no longer adequate to believe in
himself.
--
David C. Wright (wri...@autobahn.mb.ca)
An idea is not responsible for fools who believe in it.
Kevin Hudson
In alt.folklore.computers Fred <ffi...@antall.com> wrote:: Donald Tees a écrit dans le message <7dakkb$svg$1...@news.igs.net>...
:>David C. Wright wrote in message ...
:>
:>>Besides, insofar as an atheist does not believe in a higher power, a god
:>>must, perforce, be atheist.
:>
:>No, an atheist does not believe in gods.
:>
: isn't that an "agnostic" (Or maybe it's just the opposite...)An agnostic is one who merely claims that he/she/it has no incontrovertible
evidence of existence of god. The atheist applies Occam's Razor to this
proposition,eg. Laplace's reply to Napoleon's remark about the lack of reference to
god in _M\'echanique_c\'eleste_: Je n'avais pas besoin de cette
hypoth\`ese-l\`a.Cheers,
Kin Hoong
Actually, the agnostic is the one who applies Occum's Razor.
If something, is by simplist explanation, explained by being done
by (a) God, then Occums Razor would apply and the agnostic would concede
that there is (a) God. The athesist, on the other hand,
would, for example, look to the explaination of a million chimps in a room
of typewriters over eons, producing the complete works of Shaekspear,
to keep from admitting the existance of (a) God.
--
Power to the Penguins!
Kin Hoong CHUNG
: On 1999-03-30 khc...@maths.unsw.edu.au said:
: ::known. Witness the cold fusion fiasco of a few years ago for
: ::another demonstration.
: :No! The cold fusion fiasco can be described as "it cannot be
: :reproduced, ergo it does not exist." Science depends heavily on
: :statistical reproducibility (which is why most scientists do at
: :least 3 experiments and usually many many more---you can't do
: :statistics on less than 3 experiments).
: I rather formed the impression that the jury was still out on it - that
: it was widely regarded as a fraud, but they may have found something
: (although almost certainly not what they thought they'd found).
Not really. The phenomenon of cold thermo-nuclear fusion does exist, and
you can find some really good references by looking up papers by some
physicist named Jones at Texas A & M (if I remember correctly---and yes,
there were neutrons), but the Fleishman and Pons version was shown
categorically to be folly. The two of them had very badly controlled
experiments and their hypothesis fell to bits. There were some believers
up to 5 years after 1989, but they never did achieve anything.
The main upshot of the Fleishman and Pons debacle was that somebody made
incredible profits on Palladium that year.
: Those bits suggest that in fact quite a lot of work was put into
: verification.
This is what you get if you tell the _whole_ physics community that _all_
their theories are wrong.
[deleted]
: Verification is not the scientific process in itself - but it is the
: part of it that gives the whole process its credibility, the part that
: lifts a theory from a speculation of an individual to an item of
: knowledge common to humanity.
Actually, the part of the scientific method which lends it credibility
is its predictive ability. This is why most scientists do not consider
things like economics a science.
[my comments on the religious war about atheism deleted]
: No. It's a question of "what is knowledge?" - agnosticism as a position
: is tenable only in a scientific climate, where one of the basic
: qualifications of the term "knowledge" is verifiability - one might even
: say shareability; the ability to agree on a form independent of its
: perception (for the Kantians). Deities are notoriously perception-
: dependent forms.
Thus it is not scientific, since if it was you would start by making the
observation that you do not need any hypothesis for the existence of any
deity in any scientific theory which we know of which works, then by
application of Occam's Razor, there is no need for any hypothesis requiring
the existence of god. Just as in the case of the mysterious "aether"
hypothesis, if you don't need it, you throw it out. Ergo there is no god.
Cheers,
Kin Hoong