What Is the Political Agenda Behind Atheism?
567yt...@googlemail.com
in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
two- and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with
the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of
charge in State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard
to marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be
educated by the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to
be granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the
wilful destruction of the nations and their civilization and the
substitute of barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world movement?
Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted this
ensemble into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it
prevail in other countries? The answer to these question discloses the
actual secret of our anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight
against Jewry; for the Bolshevic International is in reality nothing
less than a Jewish International."
Part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in Nuernberg on
September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist Party
Congress.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb58.htm
Is the pope Catholic? Richard Dawkins - Jewish.
His mother was Jean Mary Vyvyan Dawkins (nee Ladner).
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Dawkins_Richard.html
Ladner Name Meaning and History
Jewish (Ashkenazic): occupational name for a shopkeeper, from a
derivative of Laden ‘shop’.
http://www.ancestry.com/facts/Ladner-civil-war.ashx
-Names ending in "-ner" (Asner, Lardner, etc.)
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:37gFCsr6TWYJ:wsi.matriots.com/jews7.html+jewish+names+lardner&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3
According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother... is
considered a Jew.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/whojew1.html
'Jewish lobby' model for atheist
JTA, Published: 10/02/2007
A renowned atheist cited the "Jewish lobby" as a model for his
campaign to promote atheism in the United States.
Richard Dawkins said he wanted to gain the same kind of influence as
the Jewish lobby, saying it "monopolizes" U.S. foreign policy.
"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby
has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told --
religious Jews anyway -- than atheists and [yet they] more or less
monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see,"
Dawkins, a British evolutionary biologist who advocates atheism, told
the Guardian newspaper. "So if atheists could achieve a small fraction
of that influence, the world would be a better place."
Dawkins, an Oxford professor who wrote the best-seller "The God
Delusion," told the Guardian that he wants to organize American
atheists to counter the influence of religious groups.
"I think some sort of political organization is what they need," he
said.
What are they up to?
"The Communists are against religion (Christianity), and they seek to
destroy religion; yet, when we look deeper into the nature of
Communism, we see that it is essential nothing else than a religion
(Judaism)." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton,
p. 138).
__________
"The Jews welcome this revolution in the Christian world, and the Jews
should show an example. It is not an accident that Judaism gave birth
to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up
Marxism: all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism
and the Jews." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, by Rabbi Harry
Waton, p. 148). __________
http://wake-up-america.net/jews_and_communism__part_1.htm
Find out:
http://www.jewwatch.com
http://www.natvan.com
http://www.davidduke.com
http://www.thebirdman.org
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
Kevin MacDonald's 'The Culture of Critique' Reviewed
"In The Culture of Critique, Kevin MacDonald advances a carefully
researched but extremely controversial thesis: that certain 20th
century intellectual movements – largely established and led by Jews –
have changed European societies in fundamental ways and destroyed the
confidence of Western man. He claims that these movements were
designed, consciously or unconsciously, to advance Jewish interests
even though they were presented to non-Jews as universalistic and even
utopian. He concludes that the increasing dominance of these ideas has
had profound political and social consequences that benefited Jews but
caused great harm to gentile societies. This analysis, which he makes
with considerable force, is an unusual indictment of a people
generally thought to be more sinned against than sinning." {..]
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html
www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8428/richarddawkinsyh5vf0.jpg
Robert Cohen
The original posting is circulating redundantly, and thus I think I'll
write my pov or perspective redundantly too.
Hard core, prolific anti-Jewish propaganda of course doesn't prove by
itself the case for the necessity of modern
zionism, though that's what I perceive, my intuitive reality
Many people, including some minority of Jewish people, do not perceive
that a modern national home land, Israel, ought to exist as refuge
for historically hated Jews
Well, the posting of the anti-Jewish propaganda for me dynamically
prompts, affirms, and exemplifies why & what the UN General Assembly
decided in 1948, recognize/admit modern Israel
Theodore Herzl observed prevailing anti-Jewish attitudes in his later
19th-early 20th century, and consequently sort of started modern
zionism, and apparently he was pretty much written-off particularly by
his fellow Austrians (according to the WIKI biographical article)
I shall not ignore the implication of neo-naziism nor should decent
anti-zionists slough-off the propaganda which blatantly quotes
Goebbels
Jerry Kraus
> "Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism
> in Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham,
> Dr. Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of
> a notary public, members were requested to register their declaration
> of withdrawal from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the
> fight for atheism was carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the
> withdrawals from the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to
> two- and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme which these
> atheistic societies laid down in regard to sexual matters is amply
> charcterized in the following demands publicly expressed at meetings
> and distributed in leaflet form:
Ummmm...Jews aren't atheists.
High Miles
If someone or a bunch of someones can stop this from being
called a christian nation, I'd be delighted.
Freedom from religion is one of the dearest.
Religion, being nothing more than superstition taken to the
extreme, should be a purely personal matter, like following
the horoscopes in newspapers.
So my political agenda, as an atheist, is to get any mention of
any gods removed from all things made or procured by our
government. Pretty simple eh ?
Jerry Kraus
Why do you care? Your extremism breeds religious extremism. They're
very closely related. Because Atheism is itself a kind of religion.
Usually, these days, the Gods of Atheism are conventional science, the
scientific method and successful scientists.
chazwin
Umm - yes they are! Jew is every bit as much an ethnic term as it is a
religious one.
Your comment is like saying Romans are not atheists.
Jerry Kraus
The ancient Romans weren't atheists. They were polytheists. In
describing an "ethnic group" -- a very dubious term, by the way, its
meaning is far from clear -- one refers to predominant traits. Jews
are monotheists, the ancient Romans were polytheists.
Antisemites like the IP aren't really at all clear what they
themselves mean by "Jews". Other than people they hate. They aren't
sure if they're talking about a religion, a race, an ethnicity, a
culture, an attitude. By keeping things vague, they can maintain
their hatred. Once things get clarified, they'd have to admit that
people are pretty much the same: same problems, same weaknesses, same
strengths.
Jack
> On Nov 12, 11:42 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 4:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 11, 5:06 pm, 567ytryt...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> "Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of
>>>> Marxist atheism in Germany were Jews, among them being
>>>> Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham, Dr. Levy-Lenz and
>>>> others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of a
>>>> notary public, members were requested to register
>>>> their declaration of withdrawal from their church for
>>>> a fee of 2 Marks. And this the fight for atheism was
>>>> carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the withdrawals from
>>>> the German Evangelical Churches alone amounted to two-
>>>> and-a-half million persons in Germany. The programme
>>>> which these atheistic societies laid down in regard to
>>>> sexual matters is amply charcterized in the following
>>>> demands publicly expressed at meetings and distributed
>>>> in leaflet form:
>>
>>> Ummmm...Jews aren't atheists.
>>
>> Umm - yes they are! Jew is every bit as much an ethnic
>> term as it is a religious one.
>> Your comment is like saying Romans are not atheists.
>
> The ancient Romans weren't atheists.
I have no doubt that some of them were.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, they weren't allowed to be. It was a capital crime to deny
that the Emperor was a God. That's why the Christians were
persecuted. They denied the Roman Gods.
Jack
You can never stop someone from being an atheist. All you can do is coerce
them into pretending. I bet there've been atheists in every culture all
through history.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, personally, I don't think it's possible to be an atheist.
Everyone has to believe in something to give them a sense of
direction. Whatever that might be, is their God. It needn't be an
anthropomorphic God, since the Gods of Judaism and Islam really
aren't. But, whatever you believe in is your own sense of divinity:
truth, justice, science, kindess, pleasure, power, people etc. etc.
etc.
My view is that people calling themselves atheists are simply unable
to accept that people might have values other than their own.
Jack
Do you see the irony in your last paragraph?
Tim
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2e9db400-900c-479b...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------
What do you mean by "a kind of religion"? Is science a kind of religion? Atheism is a belief system, as is religion, as is science, but that does not mean that one can reduce one to the others. Religions subscribe to a deity or deities, atheism does not, and that's the crux of the matter.
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:2e9db400-900c-479b...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity
1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity bcapitalized :
god 1 , supreme being
2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
So, atheists revere nothing as being supremely good or powerful? They
have no belief in any system of values?
Note, the term "one" does not directly imply an anthropomorphic
deity. And religions are not necessarily based on anthropomorphic
deities.
Jerry Kraus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity
Evelyn
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2e9db400-900c-479b...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
*************
I prefer to call myself a non-theist, in that I don't believe in a 'big
daddy in the sky' kind of a god. I certainly do belong to a religion, and
there are beliefs and practices associated with that religion, however there
is no force, no insistence on any kind of a belief. You can believe or not
believe and you are OK as a buddhist. Still, I respect other religions
simply because for the most part they encourage people to behave in moral
ways, but I dislike intensely, the idea that they try to sometimes JAM their
belief systems down my throat, or force me to give credence to their beliefs
in either overt or covert ways. I am all about live and let live. Most
religious folks are OK with 'live'... but the 'let live' part seems to upset
them. They insist upon sucking others into their space, and enforcing
their beliefs for the entire population.
--
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(Our) enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship,
cupidity, hatred and discrimination, which lie within the heart of man." --
Thich Nhat Hanh
Ron Peterson
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deity
> 1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity bcapitalized :
> god 1 , supreme being
> 2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
> 3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
> So, atheists revere nothing as being supremely good or powerful? They
> have no belief in any system of values?
Theists have no dogma, so they believe in nothing in common.
Theists, simply, are not theists. They don't have any commitment to
any religion. Belief that a god exists doesn't imply a commitment to a
religion.
--
Ron
Jack
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
>
>> Well, personally, I don't think it's possible to be an
>> atheist.
>
>
> It is only being exposed and taught about god(s) in the
> culture one is born into that changes that.
>
>
>
>
>> Everyone has to believe in something to give them a
>> sense of direction. Whatever that might be, is their
>> God. It needn't be an anthropomorphic God, since the
>> Gods of Judaism and Islam really aren't. But, whatever
>> you believe in is your own sense of divinity: truth,
>> justice, science, kindess, pleasure, power, people etc.
>> etc. etc.
>
>
>> My view is that people calling themselves atheists are
>> simply unable to accept that people might have values
>> other than their own.
>
> believe there to be a god(s).
> ....and why should someone believe that...? if it were
> not for exposure to this mythological nonsense there
> would be no nonsense....!
>
> Mark
He's defining "god" broadly enough to include everyone.
Jack
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> "Jack" <furgfu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:muCdnb_QFurMrYHU...@posted.echolabs...
> define god so broadly... we *could* find evidence of
> him in everything. However, my point remains that faith is *learned* or
> *taught*...... it is not inherent in humans.
> Which leads us to the question of why wouldn't an 'everything possible'
> creator have created humans with
> such trait. Why is it necessary to not *know* that god exists? what
> is it that makes the existence of 'faith' so profoundly
> important?
>
> Mark
A lone wolf will starve, it needs to hunt in a pack to bring big game down.
Humans too depend on working together in packs to survive. And packs need
leaders. We humans have a tendency to follow strong leaders. And I think
our desire for an ultimate source of leadership is why we create powerful
gods.
Evelyn
Creating an all powerful god-figure is man's way of trumping the system.
The system itself is unfair. We die, we suffer, we get sick. Some are
born rich and blessed and some are born poor and struggle. When human
beings see this basic unfairness in life, they seek for something "beyond"
that will fix or justify that. Besides that we all want, we crave, we
desire..... there is no satisfying it. So we appeal to the 'something
beyond.'
For many it is some unseen 'big-daddy-in-the-sky' god, who is watching all
the bad stuff that hurts you or your ego agendas. He is always on your
side, and will smite your enemies and will bless you, especially if you
grovel hard enough or bribe him with whatever currency you think he will
accept; such as money, behavior, even sacrifices or prayers.
Due to coincidence, sometimes it works and it is just enough to keep so many
playing the game.
It is a delusion that is willfully engaged in, in a collective, or group
manner.
Jerry Kraus
>
> It is only being exposed and taught about god(s) in the culture one is born
> into that changes that.
>
> > direction. Whatever that might be, is their God. It needn't be an
> > anthropomorphic God, since the Gods of Judaism and Islam really
> > aren't. But, whatever you believe in is your own sense of divinity:
> > truth, justice, science, kindess, pleasure, power, people etc. etc.
> > etc.
> > My view is that people calling themselves atheists are simply unable
> > to accept that people might have values other than their own.
>
> god(s).
> ....and why should someone believe that...? if it were not for exposure to
> this mythological nonsense there would be no nonsense....!
>
> Mark
Everyone believes in something supremely good or powerful. That is
the definition of God or a God. So, Atheism is not a psychological
possibility. You are merely confused, and do not choose to
acknowledge your own Gods.
Jerry Kraus
> mark wrote:
> He's defining "god" broadly enough to include everyone.
Yes, correct. As does the dictionary!
Jack
If you're going to turn to a dictionary as the authority on the matter, then
you'll notice that the word atheist is defined in the same book.
Jerry Kraus
True. It doesn't say that it's psychologically possible to actually
be an atheist, though. Atheists may be as mythical as the Unicorn,
which you will also find in the dictionary.
Ian Smith
>
> Everyone believes in something supremely good or powerful.
Patently wrong. I don't.
regards, Ian
DuhIdiot
of a keyboard:
Or as I have put it before: life sucks and then you die, but the sky-
daddy (in many versions) is going to fix first the dying, then the
sucking.
--
J. B. Mashburn, the sad left tail of the bell curve
alt.atheist #2295, http://questioner.www2.50megs.com/list1.html
EAC Chief Of Maintenance for God's cloaking device - 14 billion years and
not one glitch!
"What a day, if you can look it in the face and hold your vomit." - Faith
No More
Mike Painter
So a belief in Hitler, who was powerful made him god?
You sound like a limited version of Frank. His definition does not include
"supremely good or powerful", just important.
It certainly is *not* the god of probably 99.999% of all people who believe
in a god.
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
It sounds like you do. Yourself. Otherwise, how would you know, with
such certainty?
Jerry Kraus
> the thing....
> Indeed, if it were a truism for mankind, every human being would believe in
> god(s)........ and they don't!
>
> > That is
> > the definition of God or a God.
> >So, Atheism is not a psychological
> > possibility.
>
> As I said earlier, absolutely every human being is born an atheist.
> It is ONLY by teaching and instruction do they learn about the notion of
> god(s).
> Not only is atheism a possibility... it is a known fact for those who do not
> believe.
> Dawkins has it right when he says that he doesn't choose not to believe in
> god, he just doesn't believe. Full stop.
> In the same way, he could not choose to believe either....
>
> >You are merely confused, and do not choose to
> > acknowledge your own Gods.
>
> There is no confusion in rejecting the notion of a god/creator when there is
> so much evidence against and precious little, other than faith, for.
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you know what the charge leveled against Christians by the Imperial
Roman Courts was?
"Atheism".
In other words, Atheism is not the abscence of Gods. It is the
presence of new, unfamiliar and poorly understood Gods.
freeisbest
Well, sorta. But thanks for the topic, turns out the Romans had a
very interesting social investment in religion:
---------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_early_Christians_by_the_Romans
For the Romans, religion was first and foremost a social activity
that promoted unity and loyalty to the state - a religious attitude
the Romans called pietas, or piety. Cicero wrote that if piety in the
Roman sense were to disappear, social unity and justice would perish
along with it.[2]
The early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of
pietas, piety, but as a superstitio, "superstition." Pliny the
Younger, a Roman governor writing circa 110 AD, called Christianity a
"superstition taken to extravagant lengths." Similarly, the Roman
historian Tacitus called it "a deadly superstition," and the historian
Suetonius called Christians "a class of persons given to a new and
mischievous superstition."[3] In this context, the word "superstition"
has a slightly different connotation than it has today: for the
Romans, it designated something foreign and different - in a negative
sense. Religious beliefs were valid only insofar as it could be shown
to be old and in line with ancient customs; new and innovative
teachings were regarded with distrust.
The Roman distaste for Christianity, then, arose in large part from
its sense that it was bad for society. In the 3rd century, the
Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:
How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have
apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every
nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters
against God? [4]
As Porphyry's argument indicates, hatred of Christians also arose from
the belief that proper "piety" to the Roman gods helped to sustain the
well-being of the cities and their people. Though much of the Roman
religion was utilitarian, it was also heavily motivated by the pagan
sense that bad things will happen if the gods are not respected and
worshiped properly.
[.....]
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Jerry Kraus
<jewbec...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Atheism, Secularism and Darwinism are part of Jewish Conspiracy
> (www.grishenkoff.com)
I AM the Jewish Conspiracy.
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Jerry Kraus
And you will get a kosher nuke on you, your family and your friends,
Nazi.
Have a nice day.
Ron Peterson
> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> Theists, simply, are not theists. They don't have any commitment to
> any religion. Belief that a god exists doesn't imply a commitment to a
> religion.
> ??????
> If theists are "not theists" .... how can you describe them as such?
Typo on my part. I meant to say that atheists are people who are not
theists.
--
Ron
Ian Smith
> On Nov 13, 10:40 am, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVEC...@orrery.e4ward.com>
> wrote:
>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>>
>
>>> Everyone believes in something supremely good or powerful.
>> Patently wrong. I don't.
>>
>> regards, Ian
>
>
>
> It sounds like you do. Yourself.
>
You are discussing what *I* believe - only *I* know the answer, and
I've given it to you. I do not, and I have never, believed in
something supremely good or powerful. Full stop.
> Otherwise, how would you know, with such certainty?
Can you explain your reasoning? It escapes me completely.
regards, Ian
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
(www.grishenkoff.com)
Jerry Kraus
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
>
>
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 11:23 am, "mark" <no-oneh...@noads.com> wrote:
> >>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> >>>>> Well, personally, I don't think it's possible to be an atheist.
> >>>> Erm. EVERYONE is born atheist.
> >>>> It is only being exposed and taught about god(s) in the culture one
> >>>> is born into that changes that.
> >>>>> Everyone has to believe in something to give them a sense of
> >>>>> direction. Whatever that might be, is their God. It needn't be an
> >>>>> anthropomorphic God, since the Gods of Judaism and Islam really
> >>>>> aren't. But, whatever you believe in is your own sense of
> >>>>> divinity: truth, justice, science, kindess, pleasure, power,
> >>>>> people etc. etc. etc.
> >>>>> My view is that people calling themselves atheists are simply
> >>>>> unable to accept that people might have values other than their
> >>>>> own.
> >>>> That's nonsensical frankly. Atheists simply do not believe there to
> >>>> be a god(s).
> >>>> ....and why should someone believe that...? if it were not for
> >>>> exposure to this mythological nonsense there would be no
> >>>> nonsense....!
> >> ...... even if that were true, it does not automatically follow that
> >> god is the thing....
> >> Indeed, if it were a truism for mankind, every human being would
> >> believe in god(s)........ and they don't!
> >>> That is
> >>> the definition of God or a God.
> >>> So, Atheism is not a psychological
> >>> possibility.
> >> Not sure how you logicaly get to this assumption frankly.
> >> As I said earlier, absolutely every human being is born an atheist.
> >> It is ONLY by teaching and instruction do they learn about the
> >> notion of god(s).
> >> Not only is atheism a possibility... it is a known fact for those
> >> who do not believe.
> >> Dawkins has it right when he says that he doesn't choose not to
> >> believe in god, he just doesn't believe. Full stop.
> >> In the same way, he could not choose to believe either....
> >>> You are merely confused, and do not choose to
> >>> acknowledge your own Gods.
> >> Confused..??
> >> There is no confusion in rejecting the notion of a god/creator when
> >> there is so much evidence against and precious little, other than
> >> faith, for.
> > Roman Courts was?
>
>
> > "Atheism".
>
> "Charge"........?
> You mean 'charges' surely.......
> The issue is a good deal more complex than such a simplistic assertion.
>
> > In other words, Atheism is not the abscence of Gods. It is the
> > presence of new, unfamiliar and poorly understood Gods.
>
> expect from religious devouts.
> What you are actually desperately attempting to do, with an example of
> mindblowing fragility, is re-define the whole understanding of the word
> atheism.
> You are swimming around in a world of superstitious mysticism where god(s),
> either known, inkown, understood or misunderstood EXIST! ....... they
> don't.
> God did not create this universe and I see no reason to believe god(s)
> exist(s) for any reason whatsover.
> In other words, your assessment has no meaning - you cannot place something
> under the auspices of a non entity.
> (by the way, you've moved your position a little from the outset.....)
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, as an atheist you do not believe in anything that is supremely
good or powerful?
If not, why bother writing about it?
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Jerry Kraus
<jewpart...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What Is the Political Agenda Behind Atheism? Judeocracy
> (www.grishenkoff.com)
I must repeat, Jews aren't atheists.
Mike Painter
> So, as an atheist you do not believe in anything that is supremely
> good or powerful?
>
> If not, why bother writing about it?
There are several possibilities, most quite obvious I would think.
Sorry, there's that word "think"
Many of us do it to keep the wackos posting. It would seem that if a person
is really interested in religion, reading all these innae and contradictory
posts tends to make atheists out of them.
I neveer really believed but one of the "woodpecker's tongue" crown made me
really think about my beliefs.
Ron Peterson
> So, as an atheist you do not believe in anything that is supremely
> good or powerful?
No, atheists believe that you don't have any knowledge of any supreme
being.
> If not, why bother writing about it?
Most religions have adherents that do evil deeds in the name of their
religion.
--
Ron
Jerry Kraus
>
> news:42f3d8dd-f85e-4e18...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> So, as an atheist you do not believe in anything that is supremely
> good or powerful?
>
> Is that good OR powerful, or, good AND powerful...?
> If the first then I believe that there are powerful things we witness on
> this earth that are not *good*
> If the latter, and it is your indirect way of asking about god....then, no.
> I do not believe in god(s)...
>
> ********
> If not, why bother writing about it?
>
> Not sure what you are suggesting.
> I'm writing in reply to your assertion(s) mainly, that atheism is..... not
> (!) the abscence of Gods but the prescence of new, unfamiliar or poorly
> understood gods: that all people *believe* in something all powerful: it's
> not possible to be an atheist:
> That I can write about something that doesn't exist, as in a superstious
> mythology or a god does not mean that the mythology or god is *real* or must
> exist.
> Or perhaps I've misunderstood your point......
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, at least you aren't as hostile as many so-called atheists I've
dealt with, Mark.
You will note that the dictionary defines a God as something supremely
good and powerful. However, the dictionary does not define an atheist
as someone who does NOT believe in something supremely good and
powerful. It merely says he doesn't believe in Gods. But, that's
simply restating the literal meaning of the Latin -- no Gods. It
doesn't explain the term. There's a simple reason for this. EVERYONE
believes in something supremely good and powerful! Including
atheists. In other words, atheists do not exist, in fact.
Jerry Kraus
How are you distinguishing good from evil, if not by faith in
something supremely good and powerful? If only, your own judgement on
the matter. Which may be your God, by the way.
High Miles
D
AndrewR
news:b98dee46-8e43-4b92...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 5:44 pm, "mark" <no-oneh...@noads.com> wrote:
> You will note that the dictionary defines a God as something supremely
> good and powerful.
Which dictionary? It's easy to think of examples of gods who are neither
supremely good, nor powerful. Loki, from Norse mythology, as an example, is
a god who has limits to his power and is generally portrayed as malevolent.
knucmo
Well aside from the OP's feelings about Jews and atheism, I think
politicising any academic issue is always a bad step.
Jerry Kraus
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
>
>
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> >> On Nov 15, 2:04 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> So, as an atheist you do not believe in anything that is supremely
> >>> good or powerful?
>
> >> No, atheists believe that you don't have any knowledge of any supreme
> >> being.
>
> >>> If not, why bother writing about it?
>
> >> Most religions have adherents that do evil deeds in the name of their
> >> religion.
> > something supremely good and powerful? If only, your own judgement on
> > the matter. Which may be your God, by the way.
>
> I can see that you are imposing a definition of the word god in your
> assertions here.
> Can you define, therefore, clearly what you mean excatly by ("your") god so
> that we may measure that against another, perhaps, understanding of the
> word.
> Something a little more explicit than "supremely good" and/or
> "powerful"......
>
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My concept of God is simply whatever people believe in. Which seems
to be consistent with the dictionary definition of "something
supremely good and powerful". I don't know if I would be capable of
explicitly stating everything I believe in. The mind is a complex
thing, you know.
Graham
_____________________________________________________
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
AndrewR
news:01e7be93-a452-4b56...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> My concept of God is simply whatever people believe in. Which seems
> to be consistent with the dictionary definition of "something
> supremely good and powerful".
Excuse me if I've missed it, but you still don't seem to have referenced the
dictionary from which you are drawing this definition.
I accept that the term 'god' can be used in a non-religious sense to refer
to something which a person holds in high esteem, such as, "Money is his
god", but I do not see how you can jump from that to claiming that the focus
of worship is either supremely good or powerful.
Christopher A. Lee
<and...@rockface.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:01e7be93-a452-4b56...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
>
>> My concept of God is simply whatever people believe in. Which seems
>> to be consistent with the dictionary definition of "something
>> supremely good and powerful".
>
>Excuse me if I've missed it, but you still don't seem to have referenced the
>dictionary from which you are drawing this definition.
The standard theist one: "the dictionary".
>I accept that the term 'god' can be used in a non-religious sense to refer
>to something which a person holds in high esteem, such as, "Money is his
>god", but I do not see how you can jump from that to claiming that the focus
>of worship is either supremely good or powerful.
That's a metaphor.
Another version of "football is his religion".
It is dishonest when theists equate this with their own god(s) because
money and football are no more important to atheists than they are to
theists.
It is also dishonest because theists later equivocate between the
metaphorical and actual meanings: "but yesterday you admitted you had
a god, make up your mind".
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, the problem with the standard atheist definition of a God as a
"Sky-pixie", is that it isn't in the dictionary, and that's not what
any theists mean by it.
Jerry Kraus
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:50:01 -0000, "AndrewR"
>
> <and...@rockface.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I'll tell you a secret. Most people who call themselves religious
call me an "atheist".
Most people who call themselves atheists call me a "theist".
Alwyn
<54c3bf5d-7961-4d84...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'll tell you a secret. Most people who call themselves religious
> call me an "atheist".
>
> Most people who call themselves atheists call me a "theist".
Ah, would you be a Reconstructionist by any chance?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism>
Personally, I find it strange to be trying to obey the mitzvot of a
non-existent being, but then, who am I to judge?
Alwyn
Mike Painter
Science tells us it is probably mirror cells. There is no need for
Mike Painter
> My concept of God is simply whatever people believe in. Which seems
> to be consistent with the dictionary definition of "something
> supremely good and powerful". I don't know if I would be capable of
> explicitly stating everything I believe in. The mind is a complex
> thing, you know.
A dictionary is hardly a place to learn about the concepts of gods that
people have and your good and powerful might be all right for one of the
gods from a few thousand years ago, but does not come close to the concepts
of modern monotheistic religions.
Mike Painter
I agree, except for chemistry. There is no pink, it's RED or CLEAR.
I say lets vote on it.
Ian Smith
>
> Well, the problem with the standard atheist definition of a God as a
> "Sky-pixie", is that it isn't in the dictionary, and that's not what
> any theists mean by it.
>
Gerry - it isn't a problem at all.
A dictionary lists common usage - not a definition.
'Atheist' was listed in at least one US based dictionary I saw as
'anti-christ', and I'm sure that was a common usage in some parts of
the US at some time. It doesn't make it a credible definition.
regards, Ian
Mike Painter
He is cherry picking or using a pocket dictionary, the kind that defines a
dirk as a dagger and a dagger as a dirk.
Most dictionaries have several definitions. His is sort of covered in the
merriam-webster on-line dictionary.
It is not mentioned in my three volume unabridged version.
It has some 3000 pages each about 10 x 16 inches and it is *not* a good
place to find out what the meaning of a god is.
Jerry Kraus
>
> I'll tell you a secret. Most people who call themselves religious
> call me an "atheist".
>
> Most people who call themselves atheists call me a "theist".
>
> This is a compliment by the way, you do not (appear to) have that myopic
> inanity that the creationists here display..
> That you are religious is your choice, that you may be able to express it,
> or at the very least, have a go at it .. is commendable in the context of
> the usual dribble from the resident(s) fundamental bible literalists here.
> Most people are here, I suppose, because they feel the same way about the
> existence of god(s) but in the same way some of us go into the *christian*
> ng's and get either excluded or very short changed it really is par for the
> course here.
>
> Mark
Actually, I wouldn't particuarly call myself religious. Just
philosophical. Possibly, a mystic.
Maybe just open-minded.
Jerry Kraus
> In article
> <54c3bf5d-7961-4d84-98c6-9ec9fe2ab...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'll tell you a secret. Most people who call themselves religious
> > call me an "atheist".
>
> > Most people who call themselves atheists call me a "theist".
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism>
>
> non-existent being, but then, who am I to judge?
>
> Alwyn
Since God is undefinable, how can you possibly prove whether God
exists, or not?
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science is your God. You place its wisdom above all other things.
Therefore, it is the closest thing you have to something "supremely
good and powerful".
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
>> Since God is undefinable, how can you possibly prove whether God
>> exists, or not?
>
>
>
>Yes.... agnostically that's right.......
>As an atheist, we go through further rationality and comprehension to arrive
>at being atheist...
>It's simple really, there IS no evidence for god - there is belief and
>faith and other esoterics, but when one considers the *lack* of evidence
>for god it surely follows that atheism is the only place to be....?
That's half of it.
The other half is that it isn't even part of the atheist paradigm as
anything more than just one of the hundreds of different religious
beliefs out there.
I have no idea why we are expected to think it somehow more special
than any of the others, from which it is not substantively different.
The big problem is that stupid believers who can't see beyond the ends
of their noses, are incapable of understanding that their
inside-the-religion presumptions are only granted inside it.
>Mark
Ian Smith
>
> Since God is undefinable, how can you possibly prove whether God
> exists, or not?
>
Gerry - it isn't productive to talk about 'proof' in relation to
much outside of mathematics. We can really only talk about the
amount of evidence either for, or against.
Evolution, for instance, is supported by overwhelming evidence to
the point where it is regarded as established beyond doubt, but that
still isn't proof.
The notion of a god is supported by no evidence whatsoever - the
only arguments made on this group are of the 'argument from
ignorance' variety, which essentially says "I don't understand X,
therefore goddidit" without attempting to provide supporting
evidence for the god hypothesis.
regards, Ian
Christopher A. Lee
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
>> Since God is undefinable, how can you possibly prove whether God
>> exists, or not?
It's not our problem. This is the real world where people have to back
up presumptions their audience doesn't already grant.
>Gerry - it isn't productive to talk about 'proof' in relation to
>much outside of mathematics. We can really only talk about the
>amount of evidence either for, or against.
>
>Evolution, for instance, is supported by overwhelming evidence to
>the point where it is regarded as established beyond doubt, but that
>still isn't proof.
>
>The notion of a god is supported by no evidence whatsoever - the
>only arguments made on this group are of the 'argument from
>ignorance' variety, which essentially says "I don't understand X,
>therefore goddidit" without attempting to provide supporting
>evidence for the god hypothesis.
I have never understood how these imbeciles can expect people outside
their religion even to consider goddidit any more than they give a
thought to zeusdidit.
>regards, Ian
Alwyn
<4505e980-6bd8-4a7a...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Since God is undefinable, how can you possibly prove whether God
> exists, or not?
Well, the Schoolmen produced numerous proofs of God's existence, did
they not? And Kurt Gödel reformulated the Ontological Proof using modal
logic. The problem is that only believers find these proofs compelling.
A philosophically minded person might wish to ponder further whether
'God exists' is a proposition and is contradicted by 'God does not
exist'. Is God one of those things to which the last sentence of
Wittgenstein's _Tractatus_ applies: 'Upon that of which one cannot
speak, one must be silent.'
I think most Wittgensteinians would say that God talk is part of a
language game; people who are not religious do not participate in this
game.
Alwyn
AndrewR
> Science is your God. You place its wisdom above all other things.
> Therefore, it is the closest thing you have to something "supremely
> good and powerful".
You've managed to get a staggering number of things wrong in one short
paragraph, well done.
To aim at the big coconuts first, science is quite clearly amoral - it
is a methodology or mind-set which is used to build knowledge. The
practical application of that knowledge (or even the specific means
used to gather it) may be capable of being subjectively judged as good
or evil, but the scientific method as a whole can not; it is simply a
process of drawing conclusions from repeatable results.
Nor does science grant "wisdom", only knowledge. The scientific
process has granted us, for example, the knowledge required to bang
together certain radioactive elements to produce a warming glow (best
observed from another continent), but has told us nothing about
whether it is wise to do so.
Science is a powerful tool, but it is not supremely powerful and nor
does it claim to be. In some cases discovering the limitations of
science are amongst the most important scientific principles of
all ... look at the uncertainty principle, for example.
Finally, and this is the important one, science is not a god. Nobody
is asked to "believe" in anything which is the result of scientific
experimentation. Every theory that exists can be knocked down with a
single, verifiable, counter-example. This is why science classes for
children get them to perform experiments with known results - not to
mechanically make them follow a script, but to show them that they can
verify for themselves the evidence on which our complete body of
scientific knowledge is based.
Jerry Kraus
My friend, I've studied with Nobel Prize Winners. They most certainly
consider themselves to be Gods. In every possible sense of the term.
And, they expect to be treated that way. There is nothing farther
from their minds than giving other people any opportunity whatsoever
to disprove anything they assert.
Scientists are far less open-minded and far more arrogant than the
Clergy these days. What can you expect from a combination of lifetime
tenure and peer review in academia? Scientists are Idols and Tin Gods
these days, nothing more. And virtually all of their research is pure
garbage.
Jerry Kraus
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, the Schoolmen produced numerous proofs of God's existence, did
> they not? And Kurt Gödel reformulated the Ontological Proof using modal
> logic. The problem is that only believers find these proofs compelling.
Most religious people just laugh at the notion of "proving the
existence of God". The whole idea of God is that it transcends
rational thought. That is, basically, the function of the concept of
God. To instill humility and flexibility in human thought. We can
never know everything. Otherwise, we get silly scientists claiming
things like "all there is to know, we now know."
mg
behind theism.
Mike Painter
I've not been very impressed with your thought processes and this takes you
down another notch.
You have made an arbitray definition of a god based on a minor dictionary
entry.
God is something "supremely good and powerful".
The you say that my god is science because it is *close to* your idea.
Which of course means it is not "supremely good and powerful" to me and
therefore can't be my god.
With the definition that you and Frank put on a god you might as well admit
that you are an atheist.
Mike Painter
>
> My friend, I've studied with Nobel Prize Winners.
WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW?
Ian Smith
> On Nov 18, 5:21 pm, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article
>> <4505e980-6bd8-4a7a-916c-3ccbfa384...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, the Schoolmen produced numerous proofs of God's existence, did
>> they not? And Kurt Gödel reformulated the Ontological Proof using modal
>> logic. The problem is that only believers find these proofs compelling.
>
>
> Most religious people just laugh at the notion of "proving the
> existence of God". The whole idea of God is that it transcends
> rational thought.
I'm sure they laugh, nervously, as religion is on the decline -
catastrophic decline in some cases.
We don't ask for 'proof' because we realise that there isn't much of
that outside of mathematics.
So, you might have ideas about 'god', others may have different
ideas about 'god', others may have ideas of a different 'god' and
yet other have ideas about multiple 'gods'. There is no shortage of
superstitions or gods.
If you have an 'idea' about there being a 'god', and you want this
'idea' to be taken seriously then the solution is easy - just
present the evidence.
regards, Ian
thisi...@nowhere.com
That's one of the best admissions of. "We just made it all up"
I have yet to see.
Please cite the scientist who said the above. If that was what
they thought why so much research? Why the billions being
spent at CERN? You are right they would have to be rather
silly (Creation scientists?) to make such a claim
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Ian Smith
>
> My friend, I've studied with Nobel Prize Winners. They most certainly
> consider themselves to be Gods. In every possible sense of the term.
> And, they expect to be treated that way. There is nothing farther
> from their minds than giving other people any opportunity whatsoever
> to disprove anything they assert.
Strange, the one I worked with certainly didn't, so we can discount
that claim.
regards, Ian
Christopher A. Lee
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 18, 5:21 pm, Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article
>> <4505e980-6bd8-4a7a-916c-3ccbfa384...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, the Schoolmen produced numerous proofs of God's existence, did
>> they not? And Kurt Gödel reformulated the Ontological Proof using modal
>> logic. The problem is that only believers find these proofs compelling.
>
>
>Most religious people just laugh at the notion of "proving the
>existence of God".
Then they should have the common sense and courtesy not to beg the
question they then dishonestly cop out of answering.
> The whole idea of God is that it transcends
>rational thought.
A mind-bogglingly stupid rationalisation for mind-boggling stupidity.
> That is, basically, the function of the concept of
>God.
A liar as well as an idiot.
> To instill humility and flexibility in human thought.
When are you going to be humble, hypocrite?
> We can
>never know everything. Otherwise, we get silly scientists claiming
>things like "all there is to know, we now know."
More stupid lies from a typically stupid theist.
Ian Smith
>>
>> Most religious people just laugh at the notion of "proving the
>> existence of God". The whole idea of God is that it transcends
>> rational thought. That is, basically, the function of the concept of
>> God. To instill humility and flexibility in human thought. We can
>> never know everything. Otherwise, we get silly scientists claiming
>> things like "all there is to know, we now know."
>
> That's one of the best admissions of. "We just made it all up"
> I have yet to see.
>
> Please cite the scientist who said the above. If that was what
> they thought why so much research? Why the billions being
> spent at CERN? You are right they would have to be rather
> silly (Creation scientists?) to make such a claim
Not only that, but his statement is patently the reverse of the truth...
> We can
> never know everything. Otherwise, we get silly scientists claiming
> things like "all there is to know, we now know."
I always thought science was a process to investigate, construct
hypotheses, test them, throw away those that don't fit, and then
verify those that remain so we have a set of theories that
accurately describe what we observe and can make accurate
predictions about our surroundings.
Strangely, it has always appeared to me to be religion that stuck to
what it "knows to to be the truth" even in the face of contradictory
evidence, only accepting scientific fact when it risked ridicule by
not doing. The examples are numerous - the creation story, the age
of the universe, Copernican cosmology etc etc.
regards, Ian
Jack
Good description.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
An troll supporting an imbecile's straw man.
What part of "put up or shut up" are you morons incapable of
understanding?
We all know you can't put up.
SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR DELUDED FANTASIES BECAUSE NOBODY WOULD
GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THEM IF YOU HAD THE COURTESY AND COMMON SENSE
TO KEEP THEM TO YOURSELVES.
And that's the root of the problem, isn't it?
For some reason you psychotics think everybody else should take them
seriously.
But this is the real world where for that you have to back them up.
Instead of resorting to repeated copouts which show how dishonest you
are.
Jack
All I said was good description. Consider the possibility that you're
overreactive on this subject.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
It was a straw man. Polite word for lie.
Consider the possibility that you are a pig-ignorant, stupid,
in-your-face liar yourself.
Jack
lol You're nuts.
Jerry Kraus
Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize Economics,2002), mid-1980's, three years
in his laboratory in UBC as a graduate student.
I was so disgusted I quit. Also, I didn't care for the drug culture
at UBC.
Was paid to do computer programming for Sir Francis Crick while I was
there. Total moron.
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
Ah. You must mean all those Nobel Prize winners who encourage their
graduate students to prove that they are total frauds. And reward
them for doing so. Yes, I forgot about those.
Graham
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5100b162-561a-4c75...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 9:40 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
> >
>
> > My friend, I've studied with Nobel Prize Winners.
>
> WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW?
Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize Economics,2002), mid-1980's, three years
in his laboratory in UBC as a graduate student.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economics Laureates don't count! {;-) After all, as Galbraith said,
astrology was invented by economists to give credibility to their own
profession.