Why Christianity (was Atheist Stumper #1)
Daniel Pflager
news:MPG.1205285d9...@news.earthlink.net...
> Daniel Pflager posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> > Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.12003e375...@news.earthlink.net...
> > > Daniel Pflager posted the following to alt.atheism:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Of course, I was
> > > > raised in a semi-hippy-social-services-liberal-arts kind of family.
No
> > > > religion, I might add.
> > >
> > > Fascinating.
> > >
> > > I'm very curious, Daniel, why, having been raised in a non-religious
> > > environment, you chose to become religious?
> >
> > Aimless hedonism and conflict in my family played a part.
>
> How so? How did hedonism and conflict within your family help to convince
> you god exists?
I knew God existed already.
The question was why did I choose to become religious.
> > Empty
> > pseudo-scientific nonsense being used to "justify" every kind of
ignorance
> > and abuse.
>
> Your use of the phrase "pseudo-scientific nonsense" tells me you did (or
now
> do) recognize the explanations offered by others as being nonsense. But I
> still do not understand how such recognition lead you to conclude god
> exists. Could you elaborate please?
See above.
> > > And why did you choose xianity?
> >
> > Two loving and sane grandmothers, both of whom were Christians. Anglican
> > high school (hardest and safest part of my childhood).
>
> I still don't understand your reasoning. Are you implying as I think you
are
> that you chose xianity for purely emotive reasons?
Partly emotive, partly cognitive. Both sides of my brain were involved in
the decision.
> > > I realize it's the most popular religion in this country, but why,
after
> > > looking into all the other available religions, did you choose
xianity?
> > > What was it that made you say "Yep! This is it! This is for me! This
is
> > > *the* one TRUE religion!"??
> >
> > It had what I knew was missing in the others. Real love.
>
> Ah! Then I was right. You chose to become a xian for purely emotive
reasons.
> Your reference to childhood abuse makes sense now. You were abused as a
> child and felt unloved and xianity seemed to offer to you unconditional
love
> in exchange for unconditional belief. You didn't feel as if others -- your
> family -- loved you whereas it seemed xians did.
No, the experience of real love was the clincher. The decision was much more
involved than just emotion.
My parents converted to Christianity when I was 11. That was a nightmare,
and should have resulted in my seeking something else, actually.
> But you know, Daniel, whether or not you feel others love you -- yourself
> included (which IMO is the most important person who should love you) --
has
> no bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness or falsity of the claim "god
> exists." You know that, right?
I take that statement as axiomatic, with one caveat.
I feel God loves me.
That presupposes He exists.
> > And yes, I did experience several churches with real honesty and misuse
of
> > doctrine problems.
>
> Could you elaborate?
The one my parents subscribed to initially for example.
Lots of phoneys using christian buzz-words. Many evil people there,
actually. Sounds a lot like the churches I've heard ex-Christian atheists
talk about, actually. Perfect example of what M. Scott Peck talks about in
People of the Lie.
> > > (You *did* look into other religions, didn't you? I take it you *did*
> > > research the subject of religious beliefs, correct? I mean, something
as
> > > important as religious belief should not be taken lightly. One should
not,
> > > if one is serious, "buy into" the first belief system one is
introduced
> > to.)
> >
> > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
Physics,
>
> (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> word atheist.)
Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
> Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you were
> (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism was/is
a
> religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we use to
> distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
Atheism is a movement in that it has membership (even membership numbers).
Kind of like being a Libertarian or Freemason.
> > but when I reached fourth year and experienced the courses in Quantum
> > Mechanics, and Relativity, I realized that atheism gripped its adherents
in
>
> (That's better. :)
>
> "It's adherents" Daniel? Once again your use of terminology is strongly
> suspect. You seem to be implying you believe atheism has a dogma or
doctrine
> that must be adhered to. You seem to believe atheism is a religion.
>
> It's not.
I have not reached a decision on whether it is a religion or not. Frankly, I
don't understand the definition of religion well, enough. So for now, I hold
that it is not a religion.
However, it is a movement, and as such can have an associated statement of
beliefs. Such beliefs can be taught, and therefore may be called doctrines.
Atheism also embodies at least one principle, and therefore may be called a
doctrine.
Main Entry: doc·trine
Pronunciation: 'däk-tr&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from
Latin doctrina, from doctor
Date: 14th century
1 archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of
principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c : a
principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of
fundamental government policy especially in international relations
Atheists contend that atheism is a doctrine of exactly one or two
statements. Which one depends on whether you are a strong atheist or a weak
atheist, no?
I think atheism embodies many more unstated doctrines. The supremacy of the
scientific method, for example, as the one true measure of the non-existence
of God or gods.
> As I said it's simply a term used to distinguish between those who have
the
> "belief in god" property and those who do not. Does asymmetry have a dogma
> or doctrine? How about asynchronosity? No? Well neither does atheism.
Descriptions of natural properties don't have memberships, do they?
> > a tight embrace of "objective reality" that required you to prove things
>
> "Tight embrace"?
As tight as any religion. Tighter.
> Double quotes surrounding "objective reality"?
Atheists talk about "objective reality", as if their version of reality were
objective.
> "[Atheism] requires you to prove..."?
>
> Hmmmm. Interesting. More evidence to conclude you were in fact not seeking
> the truth but rather acceptance from others. You lacked being loved and
felt
> xianity provided you with it whereas "[the religion of] atheism" did not.
Oh yes. I am weak. I like to be loved. Call it a social habit. I really like
people too. Even some atheists!
> > like "does love exist?".
>
> Hmmm. The emotion of love (or rather the lack of it in your life) seems to
> have played a major role in your having chosen to become a brain-dead
xian,
> doesn't it?
Why yes, it has. I hadn't really considered the possibility that love played
no major role in the choice of atheists. Until now.
> > What rubbish.
>
> That "atheism requires its adherents to prove love exists?" Yes, I agree.
> That *is* rubbish. :)
Not what I said, was it?
Atheistic "Objective reality" is decidedly ineffective at proving such
concepts, isn't it?
> > You don't need to see Newtons
> > gravitations equation to know that gravity exists. Anyway science is so
> > primitive
>
> Primitive? How so?
Show me the mathematical representation of love.
> > it provides no help in complex arenas such as those dealing with
> > love, relationships, human behavior or religion.
>
> I beg to differ. The science of psychology provides much insight in the
> areas you speak of.
I should have said, it provides only some superficial understanding etc.
> > I looked at Eastern religions. Too self-centred, no altrusim.
>
> Ah, yes: altruism. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
>
> Tell me something, Daniel. Who is the most important person in your life?
God.
> Who, more than anyone else, should you love and who, more than anyone
else,
> should love you?
God.
> > Christianity has a lot of warts, especially in the 1st World where so
much
> > effort has been expended "freeing" people from its problems, and hanging
> > every one of their problems on it, but I found that it holds the answer.
>
> To what?
My questions.
> > There are more Christians who know about real love than in the other
> > religions I've checked out.
>
> I have to ask again, what does love (or being loved) have to do with
> accepting whether or not the proposition "god exists" is true?
It doesn't.
> > > Perhaps we should start another thread on this? :)
> >
> > Sure, why not.
>
> Done.
I already did. I've changed it back.
> Alt.Atheism #623
Mind if I call you #623?
Obedientia et Pax,
Daniel Pflager
Petteri Sulonen
Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip discussion]
> > (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> > word atheist.)
>
> Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
Nonsense. A movement implies a program. The a.a numbers are just a way of
counting the atheists active on the NG. We have no agenda, no program, and
no common philosophy. The only common characteristic that we share is a
lack of belief in a god or gods.
> > Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you were
> > (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism was/is
> a
> > religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we use to
> > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
>
> Atheism is a movement in that it has membership (even membership numbers).
> Kind of like being a Libertarian or Freemason.
Libertarianism is a philosophy (of sorts). Freemasonry is a club, with
very strict entrance requirements, rites, etc. etc. The a.a numbers are
_not_ like this.
[snip rest of misinformation]
Whatever you, Daniel, may think atheism "implies" is your business. The
fact is that you're trying to lump, say, a Libertarian and a Bolshevik
into the same group. Which _just_ _doesn't_ _work_.
-- Petteri
--
"You know what? I'm happy." | EAC, Commissar
-- Droopy | a.a #1442. BAAWA!
Remove spamblock to reply by E-mail. |
dugie3
www.cuttingedge.org, they are good places to check out.
On 26 Jul 1999 22:20:20 -0500, "Daniel Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net>
wrote:
Daniel Pflager
news:Petteri.Sulonen-...@sirmakka.in.helsinki.fi...
> In article <nz9n3.59252$vw1.2...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel
> Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> [snip discussion]
>
> > > word atheist.)
> >
> > Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
>
> counting the atheists active on the NG. We have no agenda, no program, and
> no common philosophy. The only common characteristic that we share is a
> lack of belief in a god or gods.
No common philosophy?
Of course your statement below is a doctrine of a philosophy. Atheism fits
into 2c, 3a, 3b, and 4a below.
Atheism is a philosophy of one doctrine.
Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy
Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -phies
Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from Latin
philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts
(2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology
<a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary
b (1) archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE (2) : ETHICS c : a discipline comprising as
its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values
and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an
analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or
regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war>
<philosophy of science>
4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or
group b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
> > > Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you
were
> > > (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism
was/is
> > a
> > > religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we
use to
> > > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
> >
> > Atheism is a movement in that it has membership (even membership
numbers).
> > Kind of like being a Libertarian or Freemason.
>
> Libertarianism is a philosophy (of sorts). Freemasonry is a club, with
> very strict entrance requirements, rites, etc. etc. The a.a numbers are
> _not_ like this.
>
> [snip rest of misinformation]
>
> Whatever you, Daniel, may think atheism "implies" is your business. The
> fact is that you're trying to lump, say, a Libertarian and a Bolshevik
> into the same group. Which _just_ _doesn't_ _work_.
Atheists share at least the following properties:
1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are evidence of
that.
2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
school)
This sounds like the definition of Movement in 2b below. Libertarians and
Bolsheviks work with more energy towards their respective goals, but they
are no more movements than Atheism.
Main Entry: move·ment
Pronunciation: 'müv-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the act or process of moving; especially : change of place or
position or posture (2) : a particular instance or manner of moving b (1) :
a tactical or strategic shifting of a military unit : MANEUVER (2) : the
advance of a military unit c : ACTION, ACTIVITY -- usually used in plural
2 a : TENDENCY, TREND <detected a movement toward fairer pricing> b : a
series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an
organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>
3 : the moving parts of a mechanism that transmit a definite motion
4 a : MOTION 7 b : the rhythmic character or quality of a musical
composition c : a distinct structural unit or division having its own key,
rhythmic structure, and themes and forming part of an extended musical
composition d : particular rhythmic flow of language : CADENCE
5 a : the quality (as in a painting or sculpture) of representing or
suggesting motion b : the vibrant quality in literature that comes from
elements that constantly hold a reader's interest (as a quickly moving
action-filled plot)
6 a : an act of voiding the bowels b : matter expelled from the bowels at
one passage
bill jones
debate...>
Daniel Pflager wrote:
> Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1205285d9...@news.earthlink.net...
> > (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> > word atheist.)
>
> Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
>
> > Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you were
> > (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism was/is
> a
> > religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we use to
> > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
>
Two questions:
1.Would it be fair to say atheism, either strong or weak, ~requires~ at least
one belief?
To expand Fish's statement a bit, All the misguided fools since the beginning of
the world who have believed in God's existence have made (and continue to make
even in this enlightened age) some kind of gigantic mistake.
2. What accounts for the persistence of this mistake?
Thanks for allowing the intrusion and continue on gentlemen!
God's peace,
bill+
Christopher A. Lee
bill jones <bi...@netdoor.com> wrote:
><Some incredible snipping just to get clarification on one point in an excellent
>debate...>
>
>Daniel Pflager wrote:
>
>> Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1205285d9...@news.earthlink.net...
>> > (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
>> > word atheist.)
>>
>> Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
>>
>> > Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you were
>> > (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism was/is
>> a
>> > religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we use to
>> > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
>>
>
>Two questions:
>
>1.Would it be fair to say atheism, either strong or weak, ~requires~ at least
>one belief?
No. Because it's the absence of a specific belief (belief in deity).
For most of us (aka "weak atheists") it's just somebody else's
belief. And for the rest of us (strong atheists) it's not really
a belief but a falsifiable working conclusion.
Most believers don't realise how utterly irrelevent the putative
object of their deity-belief is to us.
Language is inexact and communication requires understanding
of context, both the speaker's and listener's perspective etc.
Most atheists regard deity as a cultural phenomenon, a bit
like Santa Claus. And would tend to use the same language
about both. So those who say "there's no God" say it in the
same vein as "there ain't no Santa". And those who "believe
there's no God" also "believe there's no Santa" - although
it's not a word we use very often as we know how theists
are likely to interpret it: as an equivalent belief to theirs.
The problem is that too many people try to define us in a
contex-free manner, but in *their* context at the same time.
And end up mis-interpreting interpreting it based on presumptions
which don't even apply to us. Eg *their* God-referent not ours.
>To expand Fish's statement a bit, All the misguided fools since the
>beginning of the world who have believed in God's existence have made
A deity called "God" is just one of the thousands of deities
people believe(d) in. And funnily enough they all learned
their parents' one.
>(and continue to make even in this enlightened age) some kind of
>gigantic mistake.
You said it, not I.
>2. What accounts for the persistence of this mistake?
It's taught by parents during the child's formative years at
the same time as language etc. So it becomes programmed-in
and therefore a basic axiom. And part of the programming is
to pass it on.
Christianity survives better than the others because of the
strength of the "passing it on" programming. It is a lot
more active in this than most.
>Thanks for allowing the intrusion and continue on gentlemen!
>God's peace,
God's piece of what?
You know we don't share that delusion. So why (metaphorically)
slap our faces with it while you're asking a question?
Starbuck
lack of belief in a god or gods.<<<
Specifically which god or gods is it, that you lack a belief in?
--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.
Christopher A. Lee
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>The only common characteristic that we share is a
>lack of belief in a god or gods.<<<
>
>Specifically which god or gods is it, that you lack a belief in?
What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.
Elf Sternberg
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>The only common characteristic that we share is a
>lack of belief in a god or gods.<<<
>
>Specifically which god or gods is it, that you lack a belief in?
Any of them. All of them. We don't believe that there
exists, at all, a conscious entity outside the everyday, regular
process of the universe which is interested in us or the universe
we inhabit, and is capable of influencing this universe according
to its desires. We see no evidence whatsoever to support the many
and contentious notions about what God is, does, or wants with us.
We conclude that all of these images of God can't be right-- each
claiming to be the one only true nature of God-- and so we conclude
simply that they can all be wrong.
Elf
Daniel Pflager
news:7nl408$r...@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com...
So the atheist community consists of people who lack a belief in deity.
{ X : X is a person who lacks a belief in deity }
But this doesn't equal the empty set, right?
So atheism is still a collection of persons, right?
And you still have organized activities, like allocating atheist numbers to
any lacking a belief in deity, right?
So atheism is still a movement as in 2b.
2 a : TENDENCY, TREND <detected a movement toward fairer pricing> b : a
series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an
organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>
And an atheist number still implies a lack of belief in deity, right?
>
> >God's peace,
>
> You know we don't share that delusion. So why (metaphorically)
> slap our faces with it while you're asking a question?
I just don't get this.
How can it be a metaphoric slap in your face?
Is your lack of belief in God a handicap, like lacking a leg, that you
should feel sensitive when people mention God, as would a legless person who
feels hurt when he hears the words run, jump, hop, dance, or skip?
Do you feel you deserve special privilege due to your lack of belief?
You don't even have a belief in God. He may just as well have said "Peace"
to you, right?
Fish
> Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1205285d9...@news.earthlink.net...
> > Daniel Pflager posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> > > Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.12003e375...@news.earthlink.net...
> > > > Daniel Pflager posted the following to alt.atheism:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, I was
> > > > > raised in a semi-hippy-social-services-liberal-arts kind of family.
> > > > > No religion, I might add.
> > > >
> > > > Fascinating.
> > > >
> > > > I'm very curious, Daniel, why, having been raised in a non-religious
> > > > environment, you chose to become religious?
> > >
> > > Aimless hedonism and conflict in my family played a part.
> >
> > How so? How did hedonism and conflict within your family help to convince
> > you god exists?
>
> I knew God existed already.
>
> The question was why did I choose to become religious.
Sorry. I equated "choosing to become religious" with "choosing to believe
that god exists" since you admit to being a theist. My mistake.
Allow me to rephrase the question:
What role did aimless hedonism and conflict within your family play in your
decision to become religious?
And since the subject has now been broached, please allow me to ask another
question of you: Prior to this decision of yours to become religious, what
line of reasoning did you employ that led you to the conclusion that god
exists?
> > > Empty
> > > pseudo-scientific nonsense being used to "justify" every kind of
> > > ignorance and abuse.
> >
> > Your use of the phrase "pseudo-scientific nonsense" tells me you did (or
> > now do) recognize the explanations offered by others as being nonsense.
> > But I still do not understand how such recognition lead you to conclude
> > god exists. Could you elaborate please?
>
> See above.
<sigh>
Fine. We'll play it your way.
As you can no doubt now see, not only am I interested in what caused you
become religious, but also what led you to conclude that god exists.
If you wish to limit this particular thread to the narrow "my reasons for
becoming religious" topic rather than also including "the reasoning I
employed leading to my conclusion that god exists" topic as well, just say
so. Until then, please understand I am interested in both topics.
What role did recognizing the explanations offered by others as being
nonsense play in your decision to become religious?
What line of reasoning did you employ that led you to the conclusion that
god exists?
> > > > And why did you choose xianity?
> > >
> > > Two loving and sane grandmothers, both of whom were Christians. Anglican
> > > high school (hardest and safest part of my childhood).
> >
> > I still don't understand your reasoning. Are you implying as I think you
> > are that you chose xianity for purely emotive reasons?
>
> Partly emotive, partly cognitive. Both sides of my brain were involved in
> the decision.
Please elaborate. What were your emotive reasons for choosing to become a
xian? What were your cognitive reasons?
> > > > I realize it's the most popular religion in this country, but why,
> > > > after looking into all the other available religions, did you choose
> > > > xianity? What was it that made you say "Yep! This is it! This is
> > > > for me! This is *the* one TRUE religion!"??
> > >
> > > It had what I knew was missing in the others. Real love.
> >
> > Ah! Then I was right. You chose to become a xian for purely emotive
> > reasons. Your reference to childhood abuse makes sense now. You were
> > abused as a child and felt unloved and xianity seemed to offer to you
> > unconditional love in exchange for unconditional belief. You didn't
> > feel as if others -- your family -- loved you whereas it seemed xians
> > did.
>
> No, the experience of real love was the clincher. The decision was much more
> involved than just emotion.
Perhaps "purely emotive reasons" was unfair of me. I apologize. I understand
you that it was more than just an emotional decision. What I'm trying to
focus on is whichever played the major role in your decision: emotion or
cognition (reasoning).
If emotion played the major role, I have to ask what reasoning you employed
that allowed you to conclude that relying so heavily on emotion in such a
decision was the smart thing to do? Does emotion normally play such a major
role in your decision-making process? Can such a method be rationally
justified in your mind? If so, I'd be interested in knowing how.
If cognition (i.e. reasoning) played the major role, however, I'd very much
like you to explain your line of reasoning that: a) led to to conclude that
xianity (i.e. "becoming religious") was a sound decision to make, and b) led
you to conclude that god exists. Would you do that for me please? Thanks.
> My parents converted to Christianity when I was 11. That was a nightmare,
> and should have resulted in my seeking something else, actually.
Nightmare? How so? Did your parents become fundamental xians? Did they
rigidly adhere to the fundamental or basic principles of xianity and force
their beliefs on you? Please elaborate. I'm quite interested in why you
identify that period of your childhood as being "a nightmare".
> > But you know, Daniel, whether or not you feel others love you -- yourself
> > included (which IMO is the most important person who should love you) --
> > has no bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness or falsity of the claim "god
> > exists." You know that, right?
>
> I take that statement as axiomatic, with one caveat.
>
> I feel God loves me.
I think it's obvious from your previous responses that you lacked being
loved when you were a child, and xianity seemed, to you, to supply that
"being loved" feeling, so I must ask you, Daniel, do you think it's possible
the "being loved" feeling you experience as a xian is the result of your
fellow xians expressing love, kindness, patience, understanding, etc,
towards you or even an increase in your own love for yourself (i.e. an
increase in self-esteem resulting from the love expressed by your fellow
xians) and not that of some supernatural infinite being? Describe the
difference in the love you feel coming from god from the love coming from
yourself and others and the means you employ to distinguish each from the
other.
> That presupposes He exists.
Yes it does. Which brings us back to the question: What reasoning did you
employ that led you to the conclusion that he exists? That is, before one
can offer as a possibility for the source of this "being loved" feeling
you're talking about as coming from an infinite supernatural being (god),
one must first accept that such a being actually exists. Thus, in order for
me to understand the context of your "feeling loved" explanations, I must
first understand what led you to conclude such a being exists in the first
place. Can you do that for me please? Can you explain what reasoning you
employed that led to your conclusion that this god critter exists? Thanks.
<snip>
> > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > Physics,
> >
> > (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> > word atheist.)
>
> Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
My "atheist number" is an *alt.atheism number* and not an atheist number. Is
is debatable, I think, whether the alt.atheism Usenet news group is a
"movement" or not, but it and the atheists that frequent it are certainly
not representative of atheism in general or others atheists overall. You're
reaching here, Daniel.
> > Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you were
> > (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism was/is
> > a religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we use to
> > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
>
> Atheism is a movement in that it has membership (even membership numbers).
Incorrect.
While there are certainly many atheist organizations in existence and while
social surveys of religious beliefs can, in a sense, roughly "number" (i.e.
count) the number of atheists there are, atheism is not in any sense any
type of organization that assigns numbers to atheists.
> Kind of like being a Libertarian or Freemason.
Nope. "Atheist" is simply a label a person attaches to themselves in order
to distinguish themselves from theists, and atheism is simply a word used to
distinguish "belief in god" from "*not* 'belief in god'." The sine qua non
of atheism is simply "not theism." It is a privative term and carries with
it no additional information beyond identifying what it isn't.
An atheist tells you what a person isn't, (a theist), but it doesn't tell
you what the person *is*. Atheists can be Libertarians or Freemasons or many
other category of people, but knowing only that a person is an atheist, all
one can confidently conclude is they are not a theist. That's it.
Now, let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? :)
> > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > Physics, but when I reached fourth year and experienced the courses
> > > in Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity, I realized that atheism gripped
> > > its adherents in
<snip distracting disagreement over what atheism is and isn't>
> > Hmmmm. Interesting. More evidence to conclude you were in fact not seeking
> > the truth but rather acceptance from others. You lacked being loved and
> > felt xianity provided you with it whereas "[the religion of] atheism" did
> > not.
>
> Oh yes. I am weak.
You need to work on your self-esteem, Daniel. :)
> I like to be loved.
As most everyone does.
But whether you are loved by others or not has no correlation with whether
or not an infinite supernatural being capable of expressing love exists,
does it?
> Call it a social habit. I really like people too. Even some atheists!
Imagine that. I too like people. Even some theists!
(Who'd a thunk it, eh? :)
But to get back on track......
> > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > Physics, but when I reached fourth year and experienced the courses
> > > in Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity, I realized that atheism gripped
> > > its adherents in a tight embrace of "objective reality" that required
> > > you to prove things like "does love exist?".
> >
> > Hmmm. The emotion of love (or rather the lack of it in your life) seems to
> > have played a major role in your having chosen to become a brain-dead
> > xian, doesn't it?
>
> Why yes, it has.
Interesting. Do you think it was wise to allow such a degree of emotionalism
to affect such a decision? I mean, from what you've told me thus far, all
you were seeking was, more or less, acceptance for who you are -- i.e. "to
be loved by others." Do you think it was wise to sacrifice your intellectual
integrity and, presumably, a love for truth in exchange for the comfort of
being loved and accepted by others? Which is more important to you? Truth?
Or being loved by others? From the sounds of it, you feel being loved by
others is more important than truth.
> I hadn't really considered the possibility that love played
> no major role in the choice of atheists. Until now.
'Tis for the most part true I suspect. I can, of course, only speak for
myself when I say that emotion played absolutely no role in my becoming an
atheist. It was entirely an intellectual decision. The conclusion that god
(or gods) did (does) not exist was reached via consideration of the evidence
and arguments for and against such a proposition. Emotion played no role.
Of course, at this time, I was already an emotionally stable adult, not
lacking in self-esteem, and thus had no emotional needs or considerations to
cloud what I felt should be a purely intellectual decision. I was seeking
truth and not love as you seem to have been.
Which, or course, explains why I'm so interested in your emotional state at
the time you made your decision and how that might have affected your
reasoning process that led you to conclude that god exists and later, to
embrace xianity.
> > > What rubbish.
> >
> > That "atheism requires its adherents to prove love exists?" Yes, I agree.
> > That *is* rubbish. :)
>
> Not what I said, was it?
It sure sounded that way to me, but let's not quibble over it.
<snip>
> > Tell me something, Daniel. Who is the most important person in your life?
>
> God.
>
> > Who, more than anyone else, should you love and who, more than anyone
> > else, should love you?
>
> God.
Other than god. :)
Assume for the moment that god doesn't exist and then answer the question.
Who is the most important person in your life? Who, more than anyone else,
should you love and who, more than anyone else, should love you?
> > > Christianity has a lot of warts, especially in the 1st World where so
> > > much effort has been expended "freeing" people from its problems, and
> > > hanging every one of their problems on it, but I found that it holds
> > > the answer.
> >
> > To what?
>
> My questions.
Which were (or are)?
> > > There are more Christians who know about real love than in the other
> > > religions I've checked out.
> >
> > I have to ask again, what does love (or being loved) have to do with
> > accepting whether or not the proposition "god exists" is true?
>
> It doesn't.
I'm very glad you understand that, Daniel. *Very* glad. We've made
remarkable progress I think. :)
Now, understanding that whether or not one is loved is immaterial to whether
or not god exists, why do you believe he does? Because you're a xian and
xianity requires one to believe such? Is that it? Are you perhaps afraid if
you admit to not believing he does that others will stop loving you?
<snip>
> Mind if I call you #623?
In a word, no, not at all. I do prefer my friends -- and I do for the time
being consider you one -- to call me "Fish", but if it make you unduly
uncomfortable to do so, feel free to call me whatever you like.
Just don't call me late for supper. :)
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is
that the universe lacks anything like a god,
then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one." -- Neal M. Stevens (NMS)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
bill jones
~required~ to have at least one belief; that belief being a variation on
Fish's statement which I expand as follows: "All the misguided fools all
over the world since the beginning of the world who have believed in
God's existence have made (and continue to make even in this enlightened
age) some kind of gigantic mistake."?
(Surely the answer to this is a simple "yes"?)
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
>
> In article <379E0BAE...@netdoor.com>,
> bill jones <bi...@netdoor.com> wrote:
> ><Some incredible snipping just to get clarification on one point in an excellent
> >debate...>
> >
> >Daniel Pflager wrote:
> >
> >> Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1205285d9...@news.earthlink.net...
> >> > religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we use to
> >> > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
> >>
> >
> >Two questions:
> >
> >1.Would it be fair to say atheism, either strong or weak, ~requires~ at least
> >one belief?
>
> No. Because it's the absence of a specific belief (belief in deity).
>
<snip because I understand this bit as you do. Someone explained it to
me last week.>
>
> >To expand Fish's statement a bit, All the misguided fools since the
> >beginning of the world who have believed in God's existence have made
>
> A deity called "God" is just one of the thousands of deities
> people believe(d) in. And funnily enough they all learned
> their parents' one.
>
With the possible exception of those annoying people in airports, and
deluded children of atheist parents, of course.
> >(and continue to make even in this enlightened age) some kind of
> >gigantic mistake.
>
> You said it, not I.
>
> >2. What accounts for the persistence of this mistake?
>
> It's taught by parents during the child's formative years at
> the same time as language etc. So it becomes programmed-in
> and therefore a basic axiom. And part of the programming is
> to pass it on.
>
> Christianity survives better than the others because of the
> strength of the "passing it on" programming. It is a lot
> more active in this than most.
>
Thanks. An interesting perspective. But still this mistaken belief in
God has been in all cultures for all times and shows no sign of going
away. What do you think is the cause for this persistent mass delusion?
> >Thanks for allowing the intrusion and continue on gentlemen!
>
> >God's peace,
>
> God's piece of what?
>
> You know we don't share that delusion. So why (metaphorically)
> slap our faces with it while you're asking a question?
Gee, sorry, it's a habit. It's shorthand for "God's peace be with you",
one of those silly things the deluded say to one another with every
appearance of meaning it with good will. Please replace it with:
Whatever gives you peace, may it be with you.
bill+
Starbuck
and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
I didn't realize anyone was keeping score.
You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in reference
to a Supreme Being of some sort. The one that they don't believe in. In
other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
can not believe in it.
It seems to me to be a very pathetic world view which can't even stand on
it's own merits, but can only be understood in context of what it tries to
negate. No wonder that it is a failure.. even atheism (as a philosophy) can
not stand upright and independant from god.
In fact, most atheists are so desperate to have a god not to believe in that
they fabricate one from fiction, mix in a few historic and outdated
misapprehensions, stir with a generous amount of slander and distortion, and
wah-lah...an instant god that is not worthy of being worshipped.
So my question is entirely reasonable.
What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
Christopher A. Lee
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
>and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
>the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
>
>I didn't realize anyone was keeping score.
>
>You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in reference
>to a Supreme Being of some sort. The one that they don't believe in. In
>other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
>can not believe in it.
No, we don't. That's your strawman. WE SEE OTHERS WHO BELIEVE
IN THINGS THEY CALL GODS. Which aren't even part of us to
believe the do/don't exist.
Care to explain why you think you know what it means to be
atheist, better than we atheists do ourselves? It's arrogant
and rude.
>It seems to me to be a very pathetic world view which can't even stand on
>it's own merits, but can only be understood in context of what it tries to
>negate. No wonder that it is a failure.. even atheism (as a philosophy) can
>not stand upright and independant from god.
Now I know you're being really stupid: it's not a world-view. IT'S
JUST A CONVENIENT DEMOGRAPHIC LABEL FOR WHAT WE'RE NOT, AND ONLY
MEANINGFUL IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S THEISM.
I really don't know why this is so difficult to understand, It's
hardly rocket science.
Do you attack the concept of asymmetry because that's a label
for what something isn't, too?
>In fact, most atheists are so desperate to have a god not to believe in that
>they fabricate one from fiction, mix in a few historic and outdated
>misapprehensions, stir with a generous amount of slander and distortion, and
>wah-lah...an instant god that is not worthy of being worshipped.
Why are you such a liar? We don't fabricate deities - IN FACT WE
WOULDN'T EVEN GIVE THEM A THOUGHT EXCEPT FOR WANKERS IN-OUT-FACING
THEM AS THOUGH WE REALLY BELIEVED IN THEM.
>So my question is entirely reasonable.
Hardly.
>What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
What sort of soccer team don't you support?
Fish
<mini-rant>
Uh, Starbuck? (And any others out there with this ANNOYINGLY BAD HABIT)
*Please* do not snip the attributes when you reply to a post, okay? It makes
it extremely difficult to follow just who said what, you know? Learn how to
form a proper response. Thank you!
</mini-rant>
> >>>What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
> and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
> the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
>
> I didn't realize anyone was keeping score.
>
> You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in reference
> to a Supreme Being of some sort. The one that they don't believe in. In
> other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
> can not believe in it.
Close but no cigar.
For the most part, (that is, for what I believe is the majority of
atheists), that would be true.
But not necessarily.
There are two types of atheists: explicit and implicit.
An explicit atheist is one who is familiar with the concept of god and
rejects belief in god based on their understanding of what the word "god"
means to most people.
An implicit atheist, OTOH, is one who is not familiar with the god concept
at all, and is an atheist by default. A newborn baby or a small child not
yet introduced to the concept would be good examples of implicit atheists,
as would be those adults who grew up in a religious-free environment or one
who just doesn't "grok" the god-concept itself.
Due to the popularity of theistic religions around the globe, however, I
would hazard an educated guess that most atheists are of the explicit
variety. Thus your assertion that "an atheist must first postulate that
there is a god before they can not believe in it" can be said to be mostly
true, but not entirely true.
Implicit atheists do exist. In fact, Christopher A. Lee, who is an active
poster to this news group, is one. He just doesn't understand the god
concept at all and thus, cannot properly classify himself as a theist and
therefore admits that he is an atheist *by default*.
> It seems to me to be a very pathetic world view which can't even stand on
> it's own merits, but can only be understood in context of what it tries to
> negate. No wonder that it is a failure.. even atheism (as a philosophy) can
> not stand upright and independant from god.
Sure it can! Don't be an ass.
Atheism, as explained, is the *default*. Everyone was an atheist at one time
in their life. Everyone. Including you.
From the moment you were born until the moment your indoctrination began,
you were and atheist just like everyone else.
To say that atheism cannot stand on its own merits is an unfair and totally
ignorant statement. THEISM is the pathetic world view if you ask me, for it
promotes belief in some magical, mystical, all-knowing, all-powerful Wizard
of the Cosmos that provides all the appearance of something that doesn't
even exist. That to me is pretty damned pathetic.
The only reason you god-soaked idiots spout such asinine nonsense is because
you're either too mentally feeble to wrap what remains of your thoroughly
brain-washed minds around the fact that sputtering "godidit" is not an
explanation for anything, or you're too emotionally weak to admit that you
too do not actually believe he exists for fear of being ostracized by the
rest of your friends and loved ones.
Well not this little black duck. If the emperor isn't wearing any clothes
I'm not going to toss my intellectual and moral integrity aside and go along
with the crowd oohing and aahing about how beautiful his new robe is, I'm
going to tell people straight to their face they're a bunch of dishonest,
immoral kiss-asses because the truth of the matter is the emperor is just a
senile old fool walking around with his ass hanging out.
> In fact, most atheists are so desperate to have a god not to believe in that
> they fabricate one from fiction,
You slobbering theist idiots are the ones that fabricated him, not us. We
simply profess not to believe in such puerile fantasies, that's all.
> mix in a few historic and outdated
> misapprehensions, stir with a generous amount of slander and distortion, and
> wah-lah...an instant god that is not worthy of being worshipped.
That's not true, you empty-headed suckup and you know it. You theist morons
are the ones that are constantly trying to invent a believable, unrefutable
god-concept. We atheists simply use sound logic and rational reasoning to
explain how your still-born mental masturbations don't actually exist.
Which, not surprisingly, pisses you wankers off royally, which is why you
inevitably resort to such pitiful whining as displayed by yourself just now.
> So my question is entirely reasonable.
>
> What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
The same non-existent supernatural being you dog-sucking cumstains keep
masturbating to, that's which one.
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>Atheists share at least the following properties:
>
>1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are evidence of
>that.
No sorry, you don't understand.
The alt atheist numbering thing got started when a particularly
annoying and stupid christian told us (the aa regulars) that there
were only 5 or 6 atheists posting to this newsgroup.
To disprove him Michele called a role call.
Basically "Ok fellow atheists how many are we?"
and people stepped forward and said "I am an atheist" and were
numbered.
Even though the annoying christian has long since disappeared people
kept the numbering as a bit of fun.
There are several atheist who post regularly here who have no number
(I am one) and there are millions of atheist who never visit this
newsgroup who have no number.
>2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
>school)
>
That sounds alarming!
I am an atheist and I don't promote the removal of prayer from school.
(I am not a US citizen by the way - I am Australian.)
I believe in freedom OF religion ( as long as it doesn't involve
ritual human sacrifice!) and freedom FROM religion.
I also suspect you are confusing the campaign to keep government
sponsored religion out of schools with "removal of prayer from
schools".
They are two quite different things.
You cannot prevent people from praying - that would be illegal in the
USA. (Ever heard of the first ammendment?)
Also atheism is not a philosophy.
Atheism is a single idea.
Atheists have many different philosophies.
We often violently disagree amongst ourselves on many different
topics.
Calling atheism a philosophy is a gross exaggeration.
You are making a mountain out of a mole-hill. 8-)
Cheers, Mark.
Mark Richardson
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
>and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
>the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
>You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in reference
>to a Supreme Being of some sort.
No he isnt - you cant read and understand english properly.
>The one that they don't believe in. In
>other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
>can not believe in it.
>
No.
<Snip random gibberish>
>So my question is entirely reasonable.
>
No it isnt.
>What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
Any and all Gods.
Mark.
Petteri Sulonen
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>The only common characteristic that we share is a
> lack of belief in a god or gods.<<<
>
> Specifically which god or gods is it, that you lack a belief in?
All of them.
Petteri Sulonen
Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
You really seem to enjoy arguing about semantics, don't you?
Just for this once:
Atheism does not fit 2c, because it does not mean an analysis -- it
doesn't even mean a 'fundamental belief'. It is the _lack_ of a
fundamental belief, namely, that in the existence of a god or gods. Is
'bald' a hair color?
It does not fit 3a, because it is not 'a system of philosophical
concepts'. Not the plural. Atheism = the lack of belief in a god or gods.
That's not even a single concept, it's, again, a lack of certain concepts.
It does not fit 3b, because it is not a theory. It is a lack of certain
other theories. I do not believe the earth is flat. Does that make me an
a-flat-earthist, and a-flat-earthism a philosophy? No, it does not.
A-flat-earthism does not address whether I believe the earth is a sphere,
pear-shaped, or cubical. All of the latter are theories.
It does not fit 4a, again because of the plural.
Once more, everybody:
Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of a belief.
Baldness is not a hair color. It is a lack of hair.
Please, get the above concepts under yours. Or your scalp, if you don't
have any, no offense intended towards bald people.
[snip]
> > Whatever you, Daniel, may think atheism "implies" is your business. The
> > fact is that you're trying to lump, say, a Libertarian and a Bolshevik
> > into the same group. Which _just_ _doesn't_ _work_.
>
> Atheists share at least the following properties:
>
> 1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are evidence of
> that.
Ah, but not all atheists have atheist numbers. Not all atheist participate
on a.a. Does participating on a.a. make _you_ an atheist? 'Cause you're
taking part in the same organized activity!
> 2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
> school)
I've never taken part in any kind of effort to promote any atheism-related
end. Well, I _have_ worked for the separation of church and state in my
country -- but the immediate group of people I worked with included one
other atheist, one fundamentalist Christian, one liberal Christian, and
one non-practicing Christian.
> This sounds like the definition of Movement in 2b below. Libertarians and
> Bolsheviks work with more energy towards their respective goals, but they
> are no more movements than Atheism.
[snip]
So, are libertarian atheists and bolshevik atheists part of the same
'movement' or not?
Brian Westley
>Let me rephrase slightly. 1. Is it fair to say that all atheists are
>~required~ to have at least one belief; that belief being a variation on
>Fish's statement which I expand as follows: "All the misguided fools all
>over the world since the beginning of the world who have believed in
>God's existence have made (and continue to make even in this enlightened
>age) some kind of gigantic mistake."?
No, because it's possible to:
1) not believe in gods, and
2) be unaware whether anyone else believes (or ever believed) in gods
This is the case if, say, you grew up without hearing about the concept
of gods and you didn't come up with the concept independently.
>(Surely the answer to this is a simple "yes"?)
Nope.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
B
pmdla...@earthlink.net says...
>
>>>>What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
>and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
>the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
>
>
>other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
>can not believe in it.
Yeah, sure. The same way you must first postulate that Santa Clause exists
before you can not believe in him.
<snip>
>What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
The christian god, especially.
--
BJM #1519
Jeff Heidman
bill jones wrote:
> Let me rephrase slightly. 1. Is it fair to say that all atheists are
> ~required~ to have at least one belief; that belief being a variation on
> Fish's statement which I expand as follows: "All the misguided fools all
> over the world since the beginning of the world who have believed in
> God's existence have made (and continue to make even in this enlightened
> age) some kind of gigantic mistake."?
>
> (Surely the answer to this is a simple "yes"?)
So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Your question forces several assumptions.
1. That anyone who is a theist today is a "misguided fool".
2. That anyone who has _ever_ been a theist is a misguided fool.
3. That we live in an enlightened age.
4. That theism is a gigantic mistake.
Personally, I think #1 is only marginally true. #2 is certainly *not* true. #3 is
rather debatable. People have made that claim throughout history. But then, maybe every
age is "enlightened" compared to those that came before it. I would definitely agre
with #4.
So if your question could be re-phrased simply as
"Do you believe that all those who have been theists have been incorrect in the
factuality of their belief?"
Then the answer is yes.
Of course, even a theists must agree that even if they were not *all* wrong, the vast,
vast majority must have been, since almost all the beliefs contradict each other.
Jeff
Christopher A. Lee
>In article <7nm3u8$ea9$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>pmdla...@earthlink.net says...
>>
>>>>>What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
>>and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
>>the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
>>
>>I didn't realize anyone was keeping score.
>>
>>You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in reference
>>to a Supreme Being of some sort. The one that they don't believe in. In
>>other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
>>can not believe in it.
>
>Yeah, sure. The same way you must first postulate that Santa Clause exists
>before you can not believe in him.
The poster is either an idiot of being deliberately stupid.
>
><snip>
>
>>What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
>
>The christian god, especially.
Or any of the others. I've never been any kind of theist let
alone Christian so the Christian deity means nothing to me.
Be careful. This guy's playing word games. Just like too
many undergraduate philosophers or law students here he's
trying to "prove" he's right and we're wrong in a context-free
environment instead of addressing what atheism actually means
to atheists.
He can't be bothered to parse the word: a- meaning the absence
of the prefixed property (in this case theist). We're simply
not theist. And for some reason this is too hard for him to
understand so he asks for details what it is exactly we don't
believe in, as though we defined what theists believed.
I suspect that this is because like too many believers and a
lot of agmostics he is under the mistaken certainty that
atheist means something else. And he's setting out to "prove"
that we really believe what he says we do. By trying to
browbeat us into giving the answers he wants to loaded questions.
This is of course a prelude to equivocation. "But yesterday
you admitted........" when of course he's gone back to the
general case instead of the specific circumstances of his
loaded question.
It's dishonest. It's what we expect from sleazy lawyers.
And I for one find this arrogantly offensive.
Starbuck
acknowledging the truth."
>>>No, we don't. That's your strawman. WE SEE OTHERS WHO BELIEVE
IN THINGS THEY CALL GODS. Which aren't even part of us to
believe the do/don't exist.
Care to explain why you think you know what it means to be
atheist, better than we atheists do ourselves? It's arrogant
and rude.<<<
Frankly, based upon past conversations with self proclaimed "atheists", I
don't have much confidence in an atheist's ability to even define their own
beliefs, let alone comprehend them. Most atheists seem to define their
values and beliefs in the context of a belief in god, even if it is an ill
directed attempt to negate such a belief.
Even the title "atheist" has at it's root "theos", the Greek word for god.
If atheism is such an independant way of thinking, then why can't it at
least come up with a descriptive name for itself that excludes "god"?
Methinks atheists must have a god, even if only to justify their belief by
attempting to negate it. Lacking the Judeo-Christian god, they fabricate
one from their own imagination, so that they can not believe in it.
Which only reinforces the premise that humanity must have a "god" of some
sort in order to process thoughts regarding our own mortality, meaning of
life, purpose of existance, and so forth.
>>>What sort of soccer team don't you support?<<<
The ones that don't play by the rules, but still pretend that they do.
bill jones
Jeff Heidman wrote:
>
> bill jones wrote:
>
> > Let me rephrase slightly. 1. Is it fair to say that all atheists are
> > ~required~ to have at least one belief; that belief being a variation on
> > Fish's statement which I expand as follows: "All the misguided fools all
> > over the world since the beginning of the world who have believed in
> > God's existence have made (and continue to make even in this enlightened
> > age) some kind of gigantic mistake."?
> >
> > (Surely the answer to this is a simple "yes"?)
>
> So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
>
LOL :^)
> Your question forces several assumptions.
>
> 1. That anyone who is a theist today is a "misguided fool".
> 2. That anyone who has _ever_ been a theist is a misguided fool.
> 3. That we live in an enlightened age.
> 4. That theism is a gigantic mistake.
>
> Personally, I think #1 is only marginally true. #2 is certainly *not* true. #3 is
> rather debatable. People have made that claim throughout history. But then, maybe every
> age is "enlightened" compared to those that came before it. I would definitely agre
> with #4.
>
> So if your question could be re-phrased simply as
>
> "Do you believe that all those who have been theists have been incorrect in the
> factuality of their belief?"
>
> Then the answer is yes.
>
> Of course, even a theists must agree that even if they were not *all* wrong, the vast,
> vast majority must have been, since almost all the beliefs contradict each other.
>
> Jeff
Thanks Jeff. I'm a guest in a.a. and am willing to go along with the
labels in my quest for knowledge. With my warped sense of humor I rather
enjoy the label "misguided fool." It reminds me of a Far Side cartoon
showing a group of people with blank smiles on their faces on one side
of a window in a laboratory and a group of scientists in lab coats on
the other. One of scientists is saying, "Well of COURSE they're fools,
but the question remains, what KIND of fools are they?"
So..atheists are required to believe that the main point of all theistic
religions is simply one huge mistake.
All theists share the common ground of God-belief. As a Christian I'm
free to be more liberal in my thinking here than an atheist. (Jesus made
a couple of mysterious statements; John 14:2 "In my Father's house are
many rooms...", and John 10:16 "And I have other sheep that are not of
this fold...") I can believe even the weirdest religion contains some
part of the truth. As an atheist, all are simply wrong. Closes a lot of
doors, that. I am required to believe where Christianity and other
religions disagree they are wrong. As in math, there's only one right
answer to an addition problem, but some of the wrong answers are much
nearer being right than others...
Peace,
bill+
Elf Sternberg
"Starbuck" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Frankly, based upon past conversations with self proclaimed
>"atheists", I don't have much confidence in an atheist's ability to
>even define their own beliefs, let alone comprehend them. Most
>atheists seem to define their values and beliefs in the context of a
>belief in god, even if it is an ill directed attempt to negate such a
>belief.
>Even the title "atheist" has at it's root "theos", the Greek word for
>god.
>If atheism is such an independant way of thinking, then why can't it
>at least come up with a descriptive name for itself that excludes
>"god"?
Because, idiot, atheists do not describe themselves in terms
of God at all-- they describe themselves in terms of believers. To be
frank, Starbuck, it is *you* who is the target of atheism, you and
every other theist. We think you're insane for beleiving in your
mysterious sky pixie for which there is not a shred of proof, a scrap
of evidence, or a reason for consideration.
I don't believe in whatever fairy tale you tell me. If you
want me to accept it, it must come with solid evidence and a rational
chain of reason from the evidence to support it. It has nothing to do
with the fairy tale-- it has everything to do with whether or not I
should believe you, or a book, or a tradition, regardless of how old
or how popular.
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/
Christopher A. Lee
post it but this one was so stupid......
>In article <7nn98j$9...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>, chri...@netcom.com
>(Christopher A. Lee) writes:
>
>>He can't be bothered to parse the word: a- meaning the absence
>>of the prefixed property (in this case theist). We're simply
>>not theist.
>The only problem with this is that the word "atheism" is OLDER
>than the word theism," and therefore CAN'T be based on the word
>"theism." "Theism" is a back-formation FROM "atheism" - not the
>other way around (see the OED to verify). If you "parse the word,"
>you will also note the SUFFIXED property - "ism" - which means a
"belief."
You're an idiot - without the word theism THERE WOULDN'T BE THE
WORD ATHEISM, so how can it be older than the word theism? I know
about the OED's etymology saying it came from the French. But
it's actually a lot older than that. Both the prefix and the
property it shows the absence of are from the classical Greek.
You're an idiot again - because the prefix a- aplies to the
whole of the prefixed property. THERE IS NO -ISM DERIVED FROM
"ATHE". And even if there were, it wouldn't describe us BECAUSE
THAT'S NOT OUR POV.
It's not an -ism. Just the absence of that -ism. Ask us instead
of telling us.
And you're an even bigger idiot - BECAUSE YOU ARROGANTLY
INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO WHAT OUR OWN ATHEISM
MEANS TO US.
And finally a even bigger idiot than that: neither you nor the
OED decide what our POV is - we get to do that ourselves.
Because it's *our* POV, not the OED's or yours.
It's extremely rude. Think about it: you're insisting that we're
not telling the truth about what our own POV is. Whether or not
you understand it, you have to accept that it actually is our
own POV, and not what you think.
Why is it so hard to understand that if you guys didn't force your
religious beliefs where they are neither wanted nor needed, there
would be no reaction? Because atheism per se is a non-event: we
simply don't share your belief about something which is only
important TO YOU.
Christopher A. Lee
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I believe it was St. Teresa who said, "Humility is simply
>acknowledging the truth."
Beam. Mote. Eye. Try not to be so hypocritical next time.
Acknowledge that we atheists might actually know what our own
POV is. Also acknowledge that we don't agree with what you
insist it is. So instead of trying to prove we're not telling
the truth about is ask for more clarification.
>>>>No, we don't. That's your strawman. WE SEE OTHERS WHO BELIEVE
>>>>IN THINGS THEY CALL GODS. Which aren't even part of us to
>>>>believe the do/don't exist.
>Care to explain why you think you know what it means to be
>atheist, better than we atheists do ourselves? It's arrogant
>and rude.<<<
>
>Frankly, based upon past conversations with self proclaimed "atheists", I
>don't have much confidence in an atheist's ability to even define their own
>beliefs, let alone comprehend them. Most atheists seem to define their
>values and beliefs in the context of a belief in god, even if it is an ill
>directed attempt to negate such a belief.
Frankly, you're an arrogant idiot. We don't define ANYTHING in terms
of something as irrelevent TO US as the as-yet hypothetical object of
someebody else's theistic belief.
>Even the title "atheist" has at it's root "theos", the Greek word for god.
So? But that doesn't define us - what we *are* and what we *do* define
us. Most of the time we're not even aware we're atheist. Which is just a
convenient demographic label for what we're not, and only meaningful in
the specific context of the absent property.
Exactly the same construction as asymmetric, apolitical etc. Does
it matter that my modem is asynchronous? Most of the time it's just
a modem - except in the context that some modems work synchronously
and this one doesn't.
>If atheism is such an independant way of thinking, then why can't it at
>least come up with a descriptive name for itself that excludes "god"?
Duh..... BECAUSE IT'S JUST A CONVENIENT LABEL FOR THE ABSENCE OF
THE PRFIXED PROPERTY. AND ONLY RELEVENT IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT
OF THAT PROPERTY. It's not what we *are*, it doesn't define us.
And that's pretty much all we've got in common.
>Methinks atheists must have a god, even if only to justify their belief by
Metknows you're a blithering idiot who invents strawmen because he
asymmetric describes what something is, rather than what it isn't.
Or was it atheist? Either way they're both just convenient labels
for what remains in the set when everything with the property is
removed.
>attempting to negate it. Lacking the Judeo-Christian god, they fabricate
>one from their own imagination, so that they can not believe in it.
Don't be so frigging stupid.
>Which only reinforces the premise that humanity must have a "god" of some
>sort in order to process thoughts regarding our own mortality, meaning of
>life, purpose of existance, and so forth.
Which re-inforces the CONCLUSION that you are a complete idiot who
would rather tell people what their position is because he thinks he
already knows it, and then attack them when they correct him.
>>>>What sort of soccer team don't you support?<<<
>
>The ones that don't play by the rules, but still pretend that they do.
Projecting?
bill jones
Brian Westley wrote:
>
> bill jones <bi...@netdoor.com> writes:
> >Let me rephrase slightly. 1. Is it fair to say that all atheists are
> >~required~ to have at least one belief; that belief being a variation on
> >Fish's statement which I expand as follows: "All the misguided fools all
> >over the world since the beginning of the world who have believed in
> >God's existence have made (and continue to make even in this enlightened
> >age) some kind of gigantic mistake."?
>
> No, because it's possible to:
> 1) not believe in gods, and
> 2) be unaware whether anyone else believes (or ever believed) in gods
>
> This is the case if, say, you grew up without hearing about the concept
> of gods and you didn't come up with the concept independently.
>
Well then, this hermit who as a baby was the only survivor of a plane
crash and was washed ashore in his cradle to an uncharted island, raised
by wolves and swinging about the jungle vines ferociously looking for a
mate would still have a 50% chance of believing in God while looking up
at the stars one night. And even if he didn't, he wouldn't know the word
atheist so he wouldnt be one would he? Or would he?...I think I just
proved your point. :^)
Peace,
bill+
Daniel Pflager
I've no choice, since that all that atheism seems to come down to.
> Just for this once:
>
> Atheism does not fit 2c, because it does not mean an analysis -- it
> doesn't even mean a 'fundamental belief'. It is the _lack_ of a
> fundamental belief, namely, that in the existence of a god or gods. Is
> 'bald' a hair color?
Ok. I agree that 2c does not fit as atheism does not involve an analysis.
> It does not fit 3a, because it is not 'a system of philosophical
> concepts'. Not the plural. Atheism = the lack of belief in a god or gods.
> That's not even a single concept, it's, again, a lack of certain concepts.
That the definition did not state the plural does not mean that it actually
meant "a system of two or more philosophical concepts". It's just
grammatical conciseness, as in "How many fingers am I holding up?".
According to your plurality argument, that question is meaningless if the
person asking it is holding up only one finger. If atheism has even one
philosophical concept, it is a movement.
As for the lack of a single concept. That's not true. Atheism has at least
one concept. I know you guys like to say that its the "absence" of a belief
in deities, as if that means that atheism has no concepts, but that is a
fallacy.
Incidentally, the word concept (synonym idea):
Main Entry: con·cept
Pronunciation: 'kän-"sept
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin conceptum, neuter of conceptus, past participle of
concipere to conceive -- more at CONCEIVE
Date: 1556
1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
synonym see IDEA
That you can make a statement like "Atheism is" or "Atheism isn't" is ample
proof of the existence of the concept that you label Atheism. Look, here it
is in set notation:
1. Let U be the set of all beliefs. (U is short for Universe)
2. Let D be the set of beliefs in deity. (D is short for deity).
Atheism, is the absence of a belief in deity, by your definition, right?
3. Let Atheism be the set difference between U and D.
Here it is in set notation:
3. Atheism = U - D = D'
The concept is that Atheism equals D' (complement of D). There's at least
one concept there, even if the concept embodies a statement about absence of
belief. Assumptions, such as the "Let" statements, are concepts.
So Atheism is a philosophy of at least one concept. I hypothesize that the
definition of atheism is not expressible with any less than three separate
concepts (although the existence of a set U is usually not explicitly
stated. Nevertheless it's existence is always implied).
> It does not fit 3b, because it is not a theory. It is a lack of certain
> other theories. I do not believe the earth is flat. Does that make me an
> a-flat-earthist, and a-flat-earthism a philosophy? No, it does not.
> A-flat-earthism does not address whether I believe the earth is a sphere,
> pear-shaped, or cubical. All of the latter are theories.
I disagree. Atheism is a theory.
Here's the definition of theory:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an
art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of
action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b
: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances --
often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated
freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of
principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an
unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise
systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
It is a theory under 2, 3, 6a. For sake of argument, I also think is a
theory under 6b. Regardless, Atheism is a theory.
The hypothesis inherent in the definition of Atheism is that there exists a
set of beliefs in deity. That there also exists a compliment of that set of
beliefs.
In fact, I would suggest that the hypothesis is supportable (if not
provable), albeit as an Argumentum ad Numerum.
> It does not fit 4a, again because of the plural.
That really doesn't follow as explained above, right?
> Once more, everybody:
>
> Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of a belief.
Atheism is X. // This is a concept.
> Baldness is not a hair color. It is a lack of hair.
Baldness is not a hair color. // This is a concept
Baldness is a lack of hair. // This is another concept
> Please, get the above concepts under yours. Or your scalp, if you don't
> have any, no offense intended towards bald people.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Whatever you, Daniel, may think atheism "implies" is your business.
The
> > > fact is that you're trying to lump, say, a Libertarian and a Bolshevik
> > > into the same group. Which _just_ _doesn't_ _work_.
> >
> > Atheists share at least the following properties:
> >
> > 1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are
evidence of
> > that.
>
> Ah, but not all atheists have atheist numbers. Not all atheist participate
> on a.a. Does participating on a.a. make _you_ an atheist? 'Cause you're
> taking part in the same organized activity!
I have no atheist number. I assert I am a theist. I participate in your
activity as a theist. That this constitutes an organized activity is both a
compliment from you (thank you) and a fact (since I believe theism is a
philosophy and a movement).
> > 2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
> > school)
>
> I've never taken part in any kind of effort to promote any atheism-related
> end. Well, I _have_ worked for the separation of church and state in my
> country -- but the immediate group of people I worked with included one
> other atheist, one fundamentalist Christian, one liberal Christian, and
> one non-practicing Christian.
Okay.
> > This sounds like the definition of Movement in 2b below. Libertarians
and
> > Bolsheviks work with more energy towards their respective goals, but
they
> > are no more movements than Atheism.
>
> [snip]
>
> So, are libertarian atheists and bolshevik atheists part of the same
> 'movement' or not?
As atheists, they are part of the atheist movement called Atheism.
Daniel Pflager
> In article <7nn7us$4g2$7...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, B <mcb...@erols.com>
wrote:
> >In article <7nm3u8$ea9$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> >pmdla...@earthlink.net says...
> >>
> >>>>>What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
> >>and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
> >>the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
> >>
> >>I didn't realize anyone was keeping score.
> >>
> >>You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in
reference
> >>to a Supreme Being of some sort. The one that they don't believe in.
In
> >>other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before
> >>can not believe in it.
> >
exists
> >before you can not believe in him.
>
> The poster is either an idiot of being deliberately stupid.
No, he's being quite rational. You cannot not believe in something that has
no label or attributes.
e.g. "I don't believe in X".
"What the heck is X?"
"I don't know, but I sure don't believe in it".
Lack of X, mathematically, is the difference between the set U (of all
possible things) and X.
In terms of beliefs:
Lack of belief in Z is expressable as follows:
Let U be defined as the set of all beliefs.
Let Z be defined as some particular set belief or beliefs. (implies Z is a
subset of U).
Then the lack of Z is the set difference of U and Z, usually written in one
of the following three ways:
1. Z' Z' is also called the "compliment of
Z".
2. U - Z
3. U \ Z
We can create a new definition for this lack of belief in Z as follows:
Let aZism be defined as Z'.
You cannot define a compliment or difference without having at least a
definition for Z. For example, if you don't define Z, it could be the empty
set (no beliefs). It could be a set of any belief.
Is it such a leap to deduce that if Z = 'deity', that the same logic applies
to Z' = Atheism?
His wording may have been mis-interpretable, but I think the sense of his
argument remains.
He is perhaps wondering if there are different kinds of atheists. For
example, just as there are strong and weak atheists, perhaps there are
atheists who lack a belief in a particular god or gods.
> >
> >>What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
> >
> >The christian god, especially.
The above statement is evidence that some atheists might lack a belief in
one deity particularly.
> Or any of the others. I've never been any kind of theist let
> alone Christian so the Christian deity means nothing to me.
>
> Be careful. This guy's playing word games. Just like too
> many undergraduate philosophers or law students here he's
> trying to "prove" he's right and we're wrong in a context-free
> environment instead of addressing what atheism actually means
> to atheists.
>
> He can't be bothered to parse the word: a- meaning the absence
> of the prefixed property (in this case theist). We're simply
> not theist. And for some reason this is too hard for him to
> understand so he asks for details what it is exactly we don't
> believe in, as though we defined what theists believed.
>
> I suspect that this is because like too many believers and a
> lot of agmostics he is under the mistaken certainty that
> atheist means something else. And he's setting out to "prove"
> that we really believe what he says we do. By trying to
> browbeat us into giving the answers he wants to loaded questions.
>
> This is of course a prelude to equivocation. "But yesterday
> you admitted........" when of course he's gone back to the
> general case instead of the specific circumstances of his
> loaded question.
>
> It's dishonest. It's what we expect from sleazy lawyers.
>
> And I for one find this arrogantly offensive.
This guess about his motives is really not warranted, but it does reveal a
great deal about your attitudes.
Unless you are reacting to a prior experience, which would be
understandable.
Brian Hartman
Fish wrote:
I don't think this is quite true. Even someone with no exposure to religions
would still have magical thinking. Have you ever noticed that children constantly
ask the question, "Why?". They do this from a relatively early age. That
question itself implies a purpose and meaning to the universe that is imposed upon
it from a higher power. An atheistic child would not ask *why* the sky is blue,
but what makes the sky blue. It's a subtle difference, but I think it's true.
>
> Due to the popularity of theistic religions around the globe, however, I
> would hazard an educated guess that most atheists are of the explicit
> variety. Thus your assertion that "an atheist must first postulate that
> there is a god before they can not believe in it" can be said to be mostly
> true, but not entirely true.
>
> Implicit atheists do exist. In fact, Christopher A. Lee, who is an active
> poster to this news group, is one. He just doesn't understand the god
> concept at all and thus, cannot properly classify himself as a theist and
> therefore admits that he is an atheist *by default*.
>
> > It seems to me to be a very pathetic world view which can't even stand on
> > it's own merits, but can only be understood in context of what it tries to
> > negate. No wonder that it is a failure.. even atheism (as a philosophy) can
> > not stand upright and independant from god.
>
> Sure it can! Don't be an ass.
>
> Atheism, as explained, is the *default*. Everyone was an atheist at one time
> in their life. Everyone. Including you.
>
> From the moment you were born until the moment your indoctrination began,
> you were and atheist just like everyone else.
>
Again, I'd disagree with you here. Possibly it's because most children have some
form of religious indoctrination at a non-verbal age (baptism, for example). It's
*very* hard to live today and not have some exposure to religion at a very early
age, even if it's subconscious. I don't know how it works in other languages, but
there are all sorts of idiomatic expressions in English ("For God's sake..." "God
damn it", "godforsaken") that explicitly mention God. Add to that the expressions
mentioning Jesus and Heaven...and, well, I think the only way you'd know what a
child thought without the god influence is to have a baby raised in the woods by
wolves.
I'm glad we're keeping this on such an intellectual plane. Can't we all just get
along??? :)
Brian Hartman
Starbuck wrote:
> I believe it was St. Teresa who said, "Humility is simply
> acknowledging the truth."
>
> >>>No, we don't. That's your strawman. WE SEE OTHERS WHO BELIEVE
> IN THINGS THEY CALL GODS. Which aren't even part of us to
> believe the do/don't exist.
> Care to explain why you think you know what it means to be
> atheist, better than we atheists do ourselves? It's arrogant
> and rude.<<<
>
> Frankly, based upon past conversations with self proclaimed "atheists", I
> don't have much confidence in an atheist's ability to even define their own
> beliefs, let alone comprehend them. Most atheists seem to define their
> values and beliefs in the context of a belief in god, even if it is an ill
> directed attempt to negate such a belief.
>
Atheists embrace empiricism. If it can't be seen and measured, and
experienced, there's no reason to act as though it exists. This is not
specific to a god. Most atheists also don't believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness
monster, or UFO's. It's a rejection of magical thinking, rather than a simple
rejection of a specific god.
>
> Even the title "atheist" has at it's root "theos", the Greek word for god.
>
> If atheism is such an independant way of thinking, then why can't it at
> least come up with a descriptive name for itself that excludes "god"?
>
Try this one on for size: "Secular Humanist".
>
> Methinks atheists must have a god, even if only to justify their belief by
> attempting to negate it. Lacking the Judeo-Christian god, they fabricate
> one from their own imagination, so that they can not believe in it.
>
No need to restrict ourselves to the Judeo-Christian god. I can disbelieve in
any god *you* come up with, too. No gods at all, get it? We don't reject
specific gods. We reject the *concept* of gods and magical thinking in
general.
>
> Which only reinforces the premise that humanity must have a "god" of some
> sort in order to process thoughts regarding our own mortality, meaning of
> life, purpose of existance, and so forth.
>
Human beings invent gods in order to answer these questions because the idea
that life has no purpose or meaning is too painful for most.
>
> >>>What sort of soccer team don't you support?<<<
>
> The ones that don't play by the rules, but still pretend that they do.
>
Brian Hartman
Starbuck wrote:
> >>>The only common characteristic that we share is a
> lack of belief in a god or gods.<<<
>
> Specifically which god or gods is it, that you lack a belief in?
>
Any of them. All of them. Any one you can think up at 3 in the morning
after a particularly spicy burrito. The magical thinking in general is
what atheism rejects.
Dr Sinister
<379FDDB2...@scils.rutgers.edu>:
[snip]
>I'm glad we're keeping this on such an intellectual plane. Can't we all
>just get along??? :)
I'm sure you'll get along fine with Fish, as long as you don't expect any
intellectual integrity. Just take his reference quotations with a grain
of salt. He's already been caught fudging them.
--
"Whether you like it or not, the square root of minus one has about as
much to do with the real world as a unicorn does." - NMS
Brian Hartman
Petteri Sulonen wrote:
> In article <bBmn3.62085$vw1.2...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel
> Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi> wrote in message
> > news:Petteri.Sulonen-...@sirmakka.in.helsinki.fi...
> > > In article <nz9n3.59252$vw1.2...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel
> > > Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip discussion]
> > >
> > > > > (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> > > > > word atheist.)
> > > >
> > > > Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
> > >
> > > Nonsense. A movement implies a program. The a.a numbers are just a way of
> > > counting the atheists active on the NG. We have no agenda, no program, and
> > > no common philosophy. The only common characteristic that we share is a
> > > lack of belief in a god or gods.
> >
> Just for this once:
>
> Atheism does not fit 2c, because it does not mean an analysis -- it
> doesn't even mean a 'fundamental belief'. It is the _lack_ of a
> fundamental belief, namely, that in the existence of a god or gods. Is
> 'bald' a hair color?
>
> It does not fit 3a, because it is not 'a system of philosophical
> concepts'. Not the plural. Atheism = the lack of belief in a god or gods.
> That's not even a single concept, it's, again, a lack of certain concepts.
>
> It does not fit 3b, because it is not a theory. It is a lack of certain
> other theories. I do not believe the earth is flat. Does that make me an
> a-flat-earthist, and a-flat-earthism a philosophy? No, it does not.
> A-flat-earthism does not address whether I believe the earth is a sphere,
> pear-shaped, or cubical. All of the latter are theories.
>
> It does not fit 4a, again because of the plural.
>
> Once more, everybody:
>
> Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of a belief.
>
> Baldness is not a hair color. It is a lack of hair.
>
> Please, get the above concepts under yours. Or your scalp, if you don't
> have any, no offense intended towards bald people.
>
I think there are two ways atheism can be connected to belief:
1) A belief that no gods exist.
I don't know if that qualifies it as a religion. I doubt it. But maybe,
considering it expresses a belief in the unknowable, or at least the unknown.
2) A belief in empiricism
Most of the atheistic opinions expressed here seem to be along the lines of,
"There's no evidence", etc., which leads me to believe that empiricism may be a
common atheistic value.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Whatever you, Daniel, may think atheism "implies" is your business. The
> > > fact is that you're trying to lump, say, a Libertarian and a Bolshevik
> > > into the same group. Which _just_ _doesn't_ _work_.
> >
> > Atheists share at least the following properties:
> >
> > 1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are evidence of
> > that.
>
> Ah, but not all atheists have atheist numbers. Not all atheist participate
> on a.a. Does participating on a.a. make _you_ an atheist? 'Cause you're
> taking part in the same organized activity!
>
> > 2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
> > school)
>
> I've never taken part in any kind of effort to promote any atheism-related
> end. Well, I _have_ worked for the separation of church and state in my
> country -- but the immediate group of people I worked with included one
> other atheist, one fundamentalist Christian, one liberal Christian, and
> one non-practicing Christian.
>
> > This sounds like the definition of Movement in 2b below. Libertarians and
> > Bolsheviks work with more energy towards their respective goals, but they
> > are no more movements than Atheism.
>
> [snip]
>
> So, are libertarian atheists and bolshevik atheists part of the same
> 'movement' or not?
>
Petteri Sulonen
<dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > You really seem to enjoy arguing about semantics, don't you?
>
> I've no choice, since that all that atheism seems to come down to.
Uh, atheism only comes down to semantics? Please explain.
> > Just for this once:
> >
> > Atheism does not fit 2c, because it does not mean an analysis -- it
> > doesn't even mean a 'fundamental belief'. It is the _lack_ of a
> > fundamental belief, namely, that in the existence of a god or gods. Is
> > 'bald' a hair color?
>
> Ok. I agree that 2c does not fit as atheism does not involve an analysis.
>
> > It does not fit 3a, because it is not 'a system of philosophical
> > concepts'. Not the plural. Atheism = the lack of belief in a god or gods.
> > That's not even a single concept, it's, again, a lack of certain concepts.
>
> That the definition did not state the plural does not mean that it actually
> meant "a system of two or more philosophical concepts". It's just
> grammatical conciseness, as in "How many fingers am I holding up?".
> According to your plurality argument, that question is meaningless if the
> person asking it is holding up only one finger. If atheism has even one
> philosophical concept, it is a movement.
>
> As for the lack of a single concept. That's not true. Atheism has at least
> one concept. I know you guys like to say that its the "absence" of a belief
> in deities, as if that means that atheism has no concepts, but that is a
> fallacy.
How is it a fallacy?
You're still missing my point.
OK, let's accept that atheism is a concept. However, it's a concept in
many different, mutually incompatible philosophies.
If I accept that atheism is a philosophy, do you accept that theism is a
philosophy and a 'movement' too? That would lump you in the same
'movement' as Osama ben Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Jerry Falwell,
Yasir Arafat, David ben Gurion, and His Holiness the Pope.
Please, let's not argue about semantics. If you want to call atheism a
theory, by all means do -- just make sure that you know what you're
talking about. Thus far, you've demonstrated that don't (as shown by my
reductio ad absurdum of your view of atheism).
> The hypothesis inherent in the definition of Atheism is that there exists a
> set of beliefs in deity. That there also exists a compliment of that set of
> beliefs.
>
> In fact, I would suggest that the hypothesis is supportable (if not
> provable), albeit as an Argumentum ad Numerum.
>
> > It does not fit 4a, again because of the plural.
>
> That really doesn't follow as explained above, right?
>
> > Once more, everybody:
> >
> > Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of a belief.
>
> Atheism is X. // This is a concept.
>
> > Baldness is not a hair color. It is a lack of hair.
>
> Baldness is not a hair color. // This is a concept
> Baldness is a lack of hair. // This is another concept
You're not addressing the point I raise here. You're addressing the point
I granted you above.
> > Please, get the above concepts under yours. Or your scalp, if you don't
> > have any, no offense intended towards bald people.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > Whatever you, Daniel, may think atheism "implies" is your business.
> The
> > > > fact is that you're trying to lump, say, a Libertarian and a Bolshevik
> > > > into the same group. Which _just_ _doesn't_ _work_.
> > >
> > > Atheists share at least the following properties:
> > >
> > > 1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are
> evidence of
> > > that.
> >
> > Ah, but not all atheists have atheist numbers. Not all atheist participate
> > on a.a. Does participating on a.a. make _you_ an atheist? 'Cause you're
> > taking part in the same organized activity!
>
> I have no atheist number. I assert I am a theist. I participate in your
> activity as a theist. That this constitutes an organized activity is both a
> compliment from you (thank you) and a fact (since I believe theism is a
> philosophy and a movement).
A-ha! You, then, *are* part of Osama ben Laden's, Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini's, Yasir Arafat's, David ben Gurion's, and His Holiness the
Pope's movement. Thanks for letting us in on that. I wonder what those
characters would think of your lumping them together.
> > > 2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
> > > school)
> >
> > I've never taken part in any kind of effort to promote any atheism-related
> > end. Well, I _have_ worked for the separation of church and state in my
> > country -- but the immediate group of people I worked with included one
> > other atheist, one fundamentalist Christian, one liberal Christian, and
> > one non-practicing Christian.
>
> Okay.
>
> > > This sounds like the definition of Movement in 2b below. Libertarians
> and
> > > Bolsheviks work with more energy towards their respective goals, but
> they
> > > are no more movements than Atheism.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > So, are libertarian atheists and bolshevik atheists part of the same
> > 'movement' or not?
>
> As atheists, they are part of the atheist movement called Atheism.
...which has exactly which common goals, common organized activity, etc.?
Petteri Sulonen
<bhar...@scils.rutgers.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> I think there are two ways atheism can be connected to belief:
>
> 1) A belief that no gods exist.
>
> I don't know if that qualifies it as a religion. I doubt it. But maybe,
> considering it expresses a belief in the unknowable, or at least the unknown.
>
> 2) A belief in empiricism
>
> Most of the atheistic opinions expressed here seem to be along the lines of,
> "There's no evidence", etc., which leads me to believe that empiricism
may be a
> common atheistic value.
Tell that to an orthodox Marxist.
Starbuck
INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO WHAT OUR OWN ATHEISM
MEANS TO US.<<<
1. I am not an idiot.
2. Tell me what your ism means to me. That can probably be done in lower
case letters (at least at our first meeting). Dialogue is a much more
mature method of interpersonal communications than is shouting (IMHO).
Starbuck
of God at all-- they describe themselves in terms of believers. To be
frank, Starbuck, it is *you* who is the target of atheism, you and
every other theist. We think you're insane for beleiving in your
mysterious sky pixie for which there is not a shred of proof, a scrap
of evidence, or a reason for consideration.
I don't believe in whatever fairy tale you tell me. If you
want me to accept it, it must come with solid evidence and a rational
chain of reason from the evidence to support it. It has nothing to do
with the fairy tale-- it has everything to do with whether or not I
should believe you, or a book, or a tradition, regardless of how old
or how popular.<<<
1. I am not an idiot.
2. The word "atheist" has a meaning, and it's meaning is in context to a
refutation of god. If you wish to describe yourself in reference to
believers, then please pick another word that expresses your meaning more
concisely.
3. You have no idea what I believe in, the evidence for my beliefs, and
reasons for consideration of it, and it is extremely prejudicial of you to
presume that you might know what I believe before I have even stated what my
beliefs are.
4. I am not asking you to believe me, a book, or a tradition and frankly I
don't think that you should put your trust in any of them. I know that I
don't.
5. Reason requires an examination of the evidence... which of course you
haven't even heard expressed, let alone examined. After examining your
post, any preconception that you are (or might be) a reasonable person is
clearly not warranted.
Starbuck
experienced, there's no reason to act as though it exists. This is not
specific to a god. Most atheists also don't believe in Bigfoot, the Loch
Ness
monster, or UFO's. It's a rejection of magical thinking, rather than a
simple
Thank you for your sincere and dispassionate response.
As a Christian in the tradition of Acquinas, Thomas A Kempis, and others I
whole heartedly embrace empiricism. It is a very useful tool for the
objective examination of things that can be seen and measured. It isn't the
exculsive domain of "atheists" (assuming that we can ever come up with a
definition of the term that everyone can agree too).
I'm pretty skeptical about the Loch Ness monster (the most popular photo
turns out to have been a hoax). Undoubtedly there are things in the sky
that are unidentified. (I'm not jumping to conclude that they are of
extraterrestrial origin however), and I believe that the evidence for
Bigfoot is strongly suggestive, within the bounds of possibility, but as yet
unproven (There is that 8mm video, numerous foot casts, and 19th century
accounts of captured apes. The African Guerilla and Panda Bear were
considered legends in the early 19th century).
Be that as it may, the question asked by religion are such things as Why am
I alive?, How should I treat my fellow man?, What is the World about? and
so forth that really are not in the realm of quantifiable evidence. Denying
the existence of God on the basis that the evidence which we have in
non-material is similar to denying that value of fine art or music because
we cannot observe and measure the positive effect that it has on our lives.
Religion is closer to art than it is to science.
>>>Try this one on for size: "Secular Humanist".<<<<
At least there we can find a definition, a structure, and identifiable
philosophy that has been articulated, and perhaps even a membership roster
(e.g., American Humanist Association).
>>>No need to restrict ourselves to the Judeo-Christian god. I can
disbelieve in
any god *you* come up with, too. No gods at all, get it? We don't reject
specific gods. We reject the *concept* of gods and magical thinking in
general.<<<
I believe in God, but I'm not a real fan of magical thinking. In other
words, my own performance, church attendance, my own goodness, my adherence
to a belief system and so forth doesn't really impress Him, not does it get
me more points in my crown, nor does it get Him to do things for me. (like
heal the sick, send money, make it rain, and so on.) Get it?
>>>Human beings invent gods in order to answer these questions because the
idea
that life has no purpose or meaning is too painful for most.<<<
There is a certain amount of truth in that. The native state of human
existance seems to be a trauma of alienation from ourself and others,
rejection, unrequited love, a lack of focus and direction, loneliness. I
believe that religious belief does play a part in our search for purpose and
meaning... and healing of pain...not only physical, but also emotional,
mental, spiritual pain.
Daniel Pflager
> In article <EBPn3.1643$x7.1...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel Pflager"
> <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > You really seem to enjoy arguing about semantics, don't you?
> >
> > I've no choice, since that all that atheism seems to come down to.
>
> Uh, atheism only comes down to semantics? Please explain.
Wasn't it you who denied that Atheism is a philosophy, has concepts, or is a
theory?
I explain that later on.
That atheism may be a component of another philosophy is possible, but that
doesn't invalidate the point that atheism is itself a philosophy of at least
one concept.
> If I accept that atheism is a philosophy, do you accept that theism is a
> philosophy and a 'movement' too?
Of course.
> That would lump you in the same
> 'movement' as Osama ben Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Jerry Falwell,
> Yasir Arafat, David ben Gurion, and His Holiness the Pope.
Unfortunately, yes. We are all theists.
You've attempted to do so, but you've only reduced the number of cases under
which atheism qualifies as a philosophy.
Atheism is a theory also.
> > The hypothesis inherent in the definition of Atheism is that there
exists a
> > set of beliefs in deity. That there also exists a compliment of that set
of
> > beliefs.
> >
> > In fact, I would suggest that the hypothesis is supportable (if not
> > provable), albeit as an Argumentum ad Numerum.
> >
> > > It does not fit 4a, again because of the plural.
> >
> > That really doesn't follow as explained above, right?
> >
> > > Once more, everybody:
> > >
> > > Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of a belief.
> >
> > Atheism is X. // This is a concept.
> >
> > > Baldness is not a hair color. It is a lack of hair.
> >
> > Baldness is not a hair color. // This is a concept
> > Baldness is a lack of hair. // This is another concept
>
> You're not addressing the point I raise here. You're addressing the point
> I granted you above.
Okay, sorry. Will you please restate your point, and we'll start from
scratch.
I don't know, but I am a theist and therefore a part of the same theist
philosophy which is a common denominator of each of the individual (and
collective) philosophies of those people. I have not indicated whether I
subscribe to any more than their theist philosophy.
> > > > 2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer
from
> > > > school)
> > >
> > > I've never taken part in any kind of effort to promote any
atheism-related
> > > end. Well, I _have_ worked for the separation of church and state in
my
> > > country -- but the immediate group of people I worked with included
one
> > > other atheist, one fundamentalist Christian, one liberal Christian,
and
> > > one non-practicing Christian.
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > > > This sounds like the definition of Movement in 2b below.
Libertarians
> > and
> > > > Bolsheviks work with more energy towards their respective goals, but
> > they
> > > > are no more movements than Atheism.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > So, are libertarian atheists and bolshevik atheists part of the same
> > > 'movement' or not?
> >
> > As atheists, they are part of the atheist movement called Atheism.
>
> ...which has exactly which common goals, common organized activity, etc.?
1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
2) Association and solidarity with other Atheists.
3) Denial of theist beliefs.
4) Common expression of scorn for some theists (evidence follows):
Because, idiot, atheists do not describe themselves in terms
of God at all-- they describe themselves in terms of believers. To be
frank, Starbuck, it is *you* who is the target of atheism, you and
every other theist. We think you're insane for beleiving in your
mysterious sky pixie for which there is not a shred of proof, a scrap
of evidence, or a reason for consideration.
5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
6) Policing of the definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists.
7) Participating in anti-deity actions. e.g. Abolishing School-Endorsed
Prayer, Removal of the word "God" from the Canadian Constitution, Removal or
defacement of "In God we trust" from money.
8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g. via:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
Christopher A. Lee
Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>And you're an even bigger idiot - BECAUSE YOU ARROGANTLY
>INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO WHAT OUR OWN ATHEISM
>MEANS TO US.<<<
>
Yes you are - otherwise you wouldn't insist to atheists that
our atheism means something different to atheists that it actually
does.
>2. Tell me what your ism means to me. That can probably be done in lower
You meant the absence of an -ism.
>case letters (at least at our first meeting). Dialogue is a much more
>mature method of interpersonal communications than is shouting (IMHO).
If there were dialog. But there can't be so long as you insist that
atheism is something it isn't.
Daniel Pflager
news:7nq7nu$hus$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >>>And you're an even bigger idiot - BECAUSE YOU ARROGANTLY
> INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO WHAT OUR OWN ATHEISM
> MEANS TO US.<<<
>
> 1. I am not an idiot.
Starbuck is most definitely NOT AN IDIOT!
Such Ad Hominem attacks are, I believe, evidence that the attacker is well
outside his comfort zone.
> 2. Tell me what your ism means to me. That can probably be done in lower
> case letters (at least at our first meeting). Dialogue is a much more
> mature method of interpersonal communications than is shouting (IMHO).
Hear hear.
Jeff Heidman
Daniel Pflager wrote:
> Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7nq7nu$hus$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >>>And you're an even bigger idiot - BECAUSE YOU ARROGANTLY
> > INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO WHAT OUR OWN ATHEISM
> > MEANS TO US.<<<
> >
> > 1. I am not an idiot.
>
> Starbuck is most definitely NOT AN IDIOT!
>
> Such Ad Hominem attacks are, I believe, evidence that the attacker is well
> outside his comfort zone.
Do you know what an Ad Hominen attack is?
The statement "You are a moron" is not an Ad Hominen attack. An AH attack is an
attack on an argument through disparaging of the arguer.
(a) "You are a stupid moron who couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag"
(for example) is merely a statement about someone's perceived intelligence or
reasoning skills.
(b)"Your point is wrong because you are a stupid, ignorant, piece of filth"
would be an Ad Hominen attack.
Now, quite often people state (a) in response to a given argument, presumably
because their argument is providing evidence for (a), but that is certainly not
an Ad Hominen attack, since the statement in and of itself is independent of the
argument.
You should understand the basics of logical fallacies before you make yourself
look like (a).
Jeff
Daniel Pflager
news:37A0E5FD...@webfxREMOVETHIS2k.com...
>
>
> Daniel Pflager wrote:
>
> > Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:7nq7nu$hus$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > >>>And you're an even bigger idiot - BECAUSE YOU ARROGANTLY
> > > INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO WHAT OUR OWN ATHEISM
> > > MEANS TO US.<<<
> > >
> > > 1. I am not an idiot.
> >
> > Starbuck is most definitely NOT AN IDIOT!
> >
> > Such Ad Hominem attacks are, I believe, evidence that the attacker is
well
> > outside his comfort zone.
>
> Do you know what an Ad Hominen attack is?
>
> The statement "You are a moron" is not an Ad Hominen attack. An AH attack
is an
> attack on an argument through disparaging of the arguer.
>
> (a) "You are a stupid moron who couldn't reason his way out of a paper
bag"
>
> (for example) is merely a statement about someone's perceived intelligence
or
> reasoning skills.
That's right. It is presumbly presented in response to some stimulus, unless
the person saying it has a mental problem.
The simulus was, without question, one or more statements or arguments
previous which resulted in the frustration of the person saying it.
Looking at it another way, there is an implicit prefix of "Your point is
wrong because..." to all such statements, as in:
"Your point is wrong because you are a stupid moron who couldn't reason his
way out of a paper bag."
The effect is the same, with or without the prefix.
> (b)"Your point is wrong because you are a stupid, ignorant, piece of
filth"
>
> would be an Ad Hominen attack.
This is an Ad Hominem attack with an explicit prefix.
> Now, quite often people state (a) in response to a given argument,
presumably
> because their argument is providing evidence for (a), but that is
certainly not
> an Ad Hominen attack, since the statement in and of itself is independent
of the
> argument.
So you figure they were just calling Starbuck names for fun?
> You should understand the basics of logical fallacies before you make
yourself
> look like (a).
That's a good example of an Ad Hominem statement.
Who says the argument has to be explicit. Your argument is that I am
misusing the term Ad Hominem, and your "support" for the argument was an Ad
Hominem fallacy.
Daniel Pflager
news:379FE501...@scils.rutgers.edu...
It may be that all atheists support their lack of belief using scientific
methodology, or empiricism. But if even one does not, then there is a new
philosophical partition. e.g. scientific Atheists and non-scientific
Atheists.
Starbuck
Yes you are - otherwise you wouldn't insist to atheists that
our atheism means something different to atheists that it actually
does.<<<
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
AM NOT !!!
Now that we have the school yard bickering out of the way, perhaps you would
undertake to enlighten this poor benighted soul as to what you understand
atheism to mean?
If you are unwilling or unable to offer up an explication of what it is, and
what it means to your life...that's fine. I understand.
But If you would like to try, I'd be willing to discuss it with you.
Brian Hartman
Daniel Pflager wrote:
I certainly can't speak for all atheists. Quite possibly there are
non-scientific atheists, as you call them.
Rae Wake
argument. If he had resorted to name calling, emotivism and other such
intellecually dishonest strategies in his refutation it would have seemed like the
pot calling the kettle black. Of course we know that someone thoroughly grounded
in logic and empiricism would never resort to such designs.
Best Regards,
Kenosis
Fish wrote:
> Starbuck posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> <mini-rant>
> Uh, Starbuck? (And any others out there with this ANNOYINGLY BAD HABIT)
> *Please* do not snip the attributes when you reply to a post, okay? It makes
> it extremely difficult to follow just who said what, you know? Learn how to
> form a proper response. Thank you!
> </mini-rant>
>
> > >>>What a stupid question. Ask everybody who's in a room to get up
> > and leave if they believe in a deity. Those who are left will be
> > the atheists. Stop playing silly games to try and score points.<<<
> >
> > I didn't realize anyone was keeping score.
> >
> > You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in reference
> > to a Supreme Being of some sort. The one that they don't believe in. In
> > other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
> > can not believe in it.
>
> Close but no cigar.
>
> For the most part, (that is, for what I believe is the majority of
> atheists), that would be true.
>
> But not necessarily.
>
> There are two types of atheists: explicit and implicit.
>
> An explicit atheist is one who is familiar with the concept of god and
> rejects belief in god based on their understanding of what the word "god"
> means to most people.
>
> An implicit atheist, OTOH, is one who is not familiar with the god concept
> at all, and is an atheist by default. A newborn baby or a small child not
> yet introduced to the concept would be good examples of implicit atheists,
> as would be those adults who grew up in a religious-free environment or one
> who just doesn't "grok" the god-concept itself.
>
> Due to the popularity of theistic religions around the globe, however, I
> would hazard an educated guess that most atheists are of the explicit
> variety. Thus your assertion that "an atheist must first postulate that
> there is a god before they can not believe in it" can be said to be mostly
> true, but not entirely true.
>
> Implicit atheists do exist. In fact, Christopher A. Lee, who is an active
> poster to this news group, is one. He just doesn't understand the god
> concept at all and thus, cannot properly classify himself as a theist and
> therefore admits that he is an atheist *by default*.
>
> > It seems to me to be a very pathetic world view which can't even stand on
> > it's own merits, but can only be understood in context of what it tries to
> > negate. No wonder that it is a failure.. even atheism (as a philosophy) can
> > not stand upright and independant from god.
>
> Sure it can! Don't be an ass.
>
> Atheism, as explained, is the *default*. Everyone was an atheist at one time
> in their life. Everyone. Including you.
>
> From the moment you were born until the moment your indoctrination began,
> you were and atheist just like everyone else.
>
Kenosis
think so. part of the confusion here is that the appropriation of the term
atheist implies a theist context. For instance in the example used earlier
about a bald man.... in a world where no one had hair the term bald would not
arise. No use for it because hairlessness would be assumed. The use of the
term only arises as there is a context of at least one person with hair to give
it definition.
Best,
Kenosis
Kenosis
Fish
> Fish wrote:
>
> > Starbuck posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> > <mini-rant>
> > Uh, Starbuck? (And any others out there with this ANNOYINGLY BAD HABIT)
> > *Please* do not snip the attributes when you reply to a post, okay? It makes
> > it extremely difficult to follow just who said what, you know? Learn how to
> > form a proper response. Thank you!
> > </mini-rant>
<snip>
> > An implicit atheist, OTOH, is one who is not familiar with the god concept
> > at all, and is an atheist by default. A newborn baby or a small child not
> > yet introduced to the concept would be good examples of implicit atheists,
> > as would be those adults who grew up in a religious-free environment or one
> > who just doesn't "grok" the god-concept itself.
>
> I don't think this is quite true. Even someone with no exposure to religions
> would still have magical thinking. Have you ever noticed that children constantly
> ask the question, "Why?". They do this from a relatively early age. That
Asking "Why?" is magical thinking???? That's news to me. I always thought
asking "Why?" was simply a sign of a naturally inquisitive mind. A sign of
someone with a desire to understand the world around them. Someone with an
honest thirst for knowledge, not someone who answers such questions with
"godidit" (which it what I would call magical thinking)!
> question itself implies a purpose and meaning to the universe that is imposed upon
> it from a higher power. An atheistic child would not ask *why* the sky is blue,
> but what makes the sky blue. It's a subtle difference, but I think it's true.
My response: 1) who's to say atheist children *don't* indeed ask "What makes
the sky blue?" as opposed to "Why?", 2) I think you're really reaching here,
Brian. :)
The difference between a child asking "Why does/is...?" and a child asking
"What makes/causes...?" is IMHO *far* too subtle to make such an argument
over semantics worthwhile or productive.
<snip>
> > From the moment you were born until the moment your indoctrination began,
> > you were and atheist just like everyone else.
>
> Again, I'd disagree with you here. Possibly it's because most children have some
> form of religious indoctrination at a non-verbal age (baptism, for example). It's
> *very* hard to live today and not have some exposure to religion at a very early
> age, even if it's subconscious. I don't know how it works in other languages, but
> there are all sorts of idiomatic expressions in English ("For God's sake..." "God
> damn it", "godforsaken") that explicitly mention God. Add to that the expressions
> mentioning Jesus and Heaven...and, well, I think the only way you'd know what a
> child thought without the god influence is to have a baby raised in the woods by
> wolves.
I seriously doubt Christopher A. Lee was raised in the woods by wolves. :)
<snip>
> > > What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
> >
> > The same non-existent supernatural being you dog-sucking cumstains keep
> > masturbating to, that's which one.
>
> I'm glad we're keeping this on such an intellectual plane. Can't we all just get
> along??? :)
As long as there are those that continue to spew their religious bile into
this news group, it's extremely doubtful Brain.
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in
veneration -- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness,
and, above all, love of the truth." -- H. L. Mencken
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Fish
alt.atheism:
> Brian Hartman <bhar...@scils.rutgers.edu> wrote in
> <379FDDB2...@scils.rutgers.edu>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I'm glad we're keeping this on such an intellectual plane. Can't we all
> >just get along??? :)
>
> I'm sure you'll get along fine with Fish, as long as you don't expect any
> intellectual integrity. Just take his reference quotations with a grain
> of salt. He's already been caught fudging them.
</me looking down to notice Arvin attempting sexual intercourse with leg>
Ewwww!! That's disgusting!
<shakes Arvin free from leg>
Stop humping my leg go back to collecting tapeworms or something.
(Sheesh!)
<tosses Arvin boiled banana>
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Being Arvin Slather makes you miserable.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Arvin reminisces about his fondest childhood memories:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=441892044
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"My toaster is god. I worship toaster.
I am a toasterian." -- Arvin Slather
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"[Geezus, OS, you _do_ tend to attract the kooks these
days - Arvin Slather (or should that be Arvin Blather)
in csipgr and now this nut.]" -- Michael Fleming
(http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488700851)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Daniel Pflager
news:37a1069d...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> On 29 Jul 1999 17:31:16 -0500, "Daniel Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net>
> wrote:
My statements constitute evidence to support my assertion that Atheism is
not only a philosophly, but a movement. In other words, a philosophy with a
common agenda of some kind.
> >1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
> Many atheists (Most?) keep there belief to themselves.
> Therefore, this is not a necessary component of atheism.
I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
a few atheists.
> >2) Association and solidarity with other Atheists.
> Many atheists keep to themselves.
> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
a few atheists.
> >3) Denial of theist beliefs.
> This is what makes someone an atheist.
> (Or, more correctly, what makes someone NOTICIBLY an atheist.)
I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
a few atheists.
> >4) Common expression of scorn for some theists (evidence follows):
> Many atheists keep to themselves.
> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
a few atheists.
> [Equivalent statement - for illustration -
> I saw a christian smoking a cigarette once therefore smoking
> cigarettes is an element of being a christian.
> Can you spot the logical fallacy being employed in all but one of your
> (8) points? ]
I have heard many atheists saying that theism is evil because Christians
once burned people at the stake. It is obviously not necessary to burn
people at the stake to be Christian.
I am not talking about one-of activities or observations, but patterns in
the behaviour of atheists, and in particular behaviours which promulgate
atheism OR deny theism (which is Atheism).
Smoking cigarettes has little to do with Christianity, but helping abolish
led prayer in schools clearly has something to do with Atheism. Abolishing
led prayer is denying one particular facet of one particular variety of
theism (Christian). So the atheists that did rather actively denied theism,
didn't they?
> >5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
> I explained this one already in detail.
> (Did you read my post? Or are you are being willfully ignorant?)
>
> I am an atheist. I don't have a atheist number.
> So you are claiming either:
> (1) I am not an atheist.
> (care to tell me which God I worship?)
>
> (2) I have a number but don't know about it or i am lying.
I have read your post. Are you saying that there are no further atheist
numbers ever to be allocated? Atheist numbering is therefore closed?
> Which of these are you claiming?
> Or are you prepared to acknowledge your mistake now?
If what you are saying is that Atheism is devoid of all of the points that
I've suggested, and assuming your viewpoint represents the reality of
atheist practice, then Atheism is not a movement, it is simply a philosophy.
> An honest man acknowledges his errors.
> I would like to believe you an honest man.
I try to be.
> >6) Policing of the definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists.
> Atheist disagree amongst themselves on what atheists should believe or
> should not believe and on the meanings of words - this is not
> "policing" this is active debate and disagreement.
> There is no atheist dogma to police.
I have witnessed strongly emotional assertions to the contrary.
Are you suggesting that the people making the assertions are not in effect
"policing" the definitions?
> >7) Participating in anti-deity actions. e.g. Abolishing School-Endorsed
> Many atheists keep to themselves.
> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
Christians are often accused of having burned people at the stake. That
hasn't happened for hundreds of years, and yet there are still atheists who
use that of evidence of the "evil" of theism.
I would suggest that the fact that avowed atheists are involved in the
actions I mentioned (relatively recently, by comparison to burning at the
stake) constitutes much stronger evidence that atheists do engage in some
kinds of organized activities.
> >8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g. via:
> >http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
> Many atheists keep to themselves.
> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
And yet its contents are often quoted by atheists to support their positions
in arguments.
> So we have (3) as genuine and the rest as false attributions.
> (Straw men)
I accept that all but (3) represent the minimum ideal philosophy to which
atheists subscribe. If only a tiny minority of atheists practice the other
points, then I concede that they are not characteristics of Atheism, but
only characteristics of some atheists.
On the other hand, if a significant number of atheists engage in these or
other activities designed to communicate, promulgate or support atheism,
then it is clear that these activities constitute some form of organization
towards a goal. Such activity constitutes a movement.
It might not be fair to say that Atheism was a movement, but that a
particular set of unnamed activities constitutes an atheist movement if
those who practice it are mostly atheists, or if it advances atheist
philosophy.
So perhaps we should call the abolition of led prayer in school the Atheist
Anti-Public Prayer Movement.
> The conclusion is that atheism has one attribute COMMON to all who
> call themselves atheist. They lack belief in God.
>
> Not a very good score Daniel.
As far as the denial of theism is concerned, it seems to be the practice of
most atheists in this newsgroup, wouldn't you agree?
Perhaps there are active atheists and passive atheists. Perhaps most
atheists in this newsgroup are active atheists?
> But we live and learn do we not?
Hopefully.
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
Many atheists (Most?) keep there belief to themselves.
Therefore, this is not a necessary component of atheism.
>2) Association and solidarity with other Atheists.
Many atheists keep to themselves.
This is not a necessary component of atheism.
>3) Denial of theist beliefs.
This is what makes someone an atheist.
(Or, more correctly, what makes someone NOTICIBLY an atheist.)
>4) Common expression of scorn for some theists (evidence follows):
Many atheists keep to themselves.
This is not a necessary component of atheism.
[Equivalent statement - for illustration -
I saw a christian smoking a cigarette once therefore smoking
cigarettes is an element of being a christian.
Can you spot the logical fallacy being employed in all but one of your
(8) points? ]
>5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
I explained this one already in detail.
(Did you read my post? Or are you are being willfully ignorant?)
I am an atheist. I don't have a atheist number.
So you are claiming either:
(1) I am not an atheist.
(care to tell me which God I worship?)
(2) I have a number but don't know about it or i am lying.
Which of these are you claiming?
Or are you prepared to acknowledge your mistake now?
An honest man acknowledges his errors.
I would like to believe you an honest man.
>6) Policing of the definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists.
Atheist disagree amongst themselves on what atheists should believe or
should not believe and on the meanings of words - this is not
"policing" this is active debate and disagreement.
There is no atheist dogma to police.
>7) Participating in anti-deity actions. e.g. Abolishing School-Endorsed
Many atheists keep to themselves.
This is not a necessary component of atheism.
>8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g. via:
>http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
Many atheists keep to themselves.
This is not a necessary component of atheism.
So we have (3) as genuine and the rest as false attributions.
(Straw men)
The conclusion is that atheism has one attribute COMMON to all who
call themselves atheist. They lack belief in God.
Not a very good score Daniel.
But we live and learn do we not?
Mark.
Mark Richardson
He knows what he believes and why he believes it .
He hates (with a passion) being told what he believes and what he
thinks by others.
(You may not have intended to tell him what he believes but weather
you intended it or not is irrelevant.)
Perhaps I can be of some assistance.
On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:25:11 -0400, "Starbuck"
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>Because, idiot, atheists do not describe themselves in terms
>of God at all-- they describe themselves in terms of believers. To be
>frank, Starbuck, it is *you* who is the target of atheism, you and
>every other theist. We think you're insane for beleiving in your
>mysterious sky pixie for which there is not a shred of proof, a scrap
>of evidence, or a reason for consideration.
>
>I don't believe in whatever fairy tale you tell me. If you
>want me to accept it, it must come with solid evidence and a rational
>chain of reason from the evidence to support it. It has nothing to do
>with the fairy tale-- it has everything to do with whether or not I
>should believe you, or a book, or a tradition, regardless of how old
>or how popular.<<<
>
>1. I am not an idiot.
Probably not.
You are articulate so you are at worst an articulate idiot. 8-)
I will begin by assuming you have some intelligence and we will see
what transpires shall we?
>2. The word "atheist" has a meaning, and it's meaning is in context to a
>refutation of god.
Instead of telling you what I think let me first challenge you to do
some thinking.
Consider this:
To a believer "refutation of God" has a definite meaning.
Clearly you have a God to refute!
To a non believer what does "refutation of God" mean?????
The definition as presented has a "cultural" bias.
(Like the classic definition I saw in an oxford english dictionary
once
Foreigner : Not British !
How is a native of Kenya to use the word foreigner???? )
Is it possible to have a definition of atheist that is "culturally"
neutral?
One that is logically coherent to both a believer and a non- believer?
Mark.
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>Mark Richardson <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:37a1069d...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
>> On 29 Jul 1999 17:31:16 -0500, "Daniel Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net>
>> wrote:
>
>My statements constitute evidence to support my assertion that Atheism is
>not only a philosophly, but a movement. In other words, a philosophy with a
>common agenda of some kind.
>
They fail to constitute evidence of such.
>> >1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
>> Many atheists (Most?) keep there belief to themselves.
>> Therefore, this is not a necessary component of atheism.
>
>I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
>a few atheists.
>
You agree.
That is the critical part.
>> >2) Association and solidarity with other Atheists.
>> Many atheists keep to themselves.
>> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
>
>I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
>a few atheists.
>
Ditto.
>> >3) Denial of theist beliefs.
>> This is what makes someone an atheist.
>> (Or, more correctly, what makes someone NOTICIBLY an atheist.)
>
>I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
>a few atheists.
? Cut and pasting gone mad here! <Laugh>
Please allow me to agree with you!
>
>> >4) Common expression of scorn for some theists (evidence follows):
>> Many atheists keep to themselves.
>> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
>
>I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by quite
>a few atheists.
>
>> [Equivalent statement - for illustration -
>> I saw a christian smoking a cigarette once therefore smoking
>> cigarettes is an element of being a christian.
>> Can you spot the logical fallacy being employed in all but one of your
>> (8) points? ]
>
>I have heard many atheists saying that theism is evil because Christians
>once burned people at the stake. It is obviously not necessary to burn
>people at the stake to be Christian.
>
Two things
Fistly.
"You did it first!" or "You did it too!"
is not an excuse even when attempted by 8 year olds.
Secondly.
The point of saying that christians burned people at the stake is to
give a real world example of where christianity FAILS to make people
more moral.
Not to say "all christians are immoral - here is an example" - which
is how you are interpreting it.
That would be wrong.
If and when I see such an "argument" being attempted I jump on it like
a ton of bricks.
I know personally a few fine and moral christians.
I know by reputation many others.
That does not wipe out the reality of crimes committed by christians
in the name of their God.
If religion does not make us better people what is it for?
>I am not talking about one-of activities or observations, but patterns in
>the behaviour of atheists, and in particular behaviours which promulgate
>atheism OR deny theism (which is Atheism).
>
>Smoking cigarettes has little to do with Christianity, but helping abolish
>led prayer in schools clearly has something to do with Atheism.
It may do.
One possible motive for fighting teacher led prayer in schools is a
committment to atheism.
It may also spring from a desire to keep the government out of
religious affairs.
Is it the proper role of the government of a democracy to tell its
citizens when and how to worship?
I (an atheist) say no.
I have christian friends who agree with me on this point.
>Abolishing
>led prayer is denying one particular facet of one particular variety of
>theism (Christian). So the atheists that did rather actively denied theism,
>didn't they?
No.
They are trying to assure the rights of all, not just the christian
students.
The rights of christian children should not be at the expense of the
rights of non christians.
Mutual respect for all is what is required.
>> >5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
>> I explained this one already in detail.
>> (Did you read my post? Or are you are being willfully ignorant?)
>>
>> I am an atheist. I don't have a atheist number.
>> So you are claiming either:
>> (1) I am not an atheist.
>> (care to tell me which God I worship?)
>>
>> (2) I have a number but don't know about it or i am lying.
>
>I have read your post. Are you saying that there are no further atheist
>numbers ever to be allocated? Atheist numbering is therefore closed?
>
No! I am saying that the atheist numbers are a feature of this
newsgroup not of atheism, just as cigarette smoking is the habit of a
particular christian not a requirement of christianity.
Furthermore it is a kind of Joke!
It's for fun!
The numbers have no status.
They have no sinister "meaning".
>> Which of these are you claiming?
>> Or are you prepared to acknowledge your mistake now?
>
>If what you are saying is that Atheism is devoid of all of the points that
>I've suggested, and assuming your viewpoint represents the reality of
>atheist practice, then Atheism is not a movement, it is simply a philosophy.
>
Thank You!
An atheist MAY have point (3) as an attribute.
OR he may have (3) and (5)
OR he may have (2),(3),(4)
OR he may have (2),(3),(4) and enjoy baseball games.
Each is as "true" an atheist as any other.
Some atheists are highly intelligent, some are idiots.
Some are agresive some are passive.
If a single concept can be classed a philosophy then so be it.
Personally I would say that atheism was one facet of MY philosophy.
If someone asked me my philosophy on "life the universe and
everything" I would possibly mention that I am an atheist but more
likely the listener would have to deduce the fact from my response.
Also I have never seen another single belief or idea labelled a
"philosophy" except perhaps as a debating technique!
>> An honest man acknowledges his errors.
>> I would like to believe you an honest man.
>
>I try to be.
>
Good.
So do I.
See! Atheist and Christian and we have something in common!
8-)
>> >6) Policing of the definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists.
>> Atheist disagree amongst themselves on what atheists should believe or
>> should not believe and on the meanings of words - this is not
>> "policing" this is active debate and disagreement.
>> There is no atheist dogma to police.
>
>I have witnessed strongly emotional assertions to the contrary.
>
>Are you suggesting that the people making the assertions are not in effect
>"policing" the definitions?
>
They are having a disagreement.
The Strong - Weak thing is something I personally wax hot and cold on.
The terms Implicit (for weak) and Explicit (for strong) are more
informative terms.
Usually, if asked, I just say that I am an atheist.
>> >7) Participating in anti-deity actions. e.g. Abolishing School-Endorsed
>> Many atheists keep to themselves.
>> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
>
>Christians are often accused of having burned people at the stake. That
>hasn't happened for hundreds of years, and yet there are still atheists who
>use that of evidence of the "evil" of theism.
>
If they do they are making a fallacious argument.
You can tell 'em from me.
>I would suggest that the fact that avowed atheists are involved in the
>actions I mentioned (relatively recently, by comparison to burning at the
>stake) constitutes much stronger evidence that atheists do engage in some
>kinds of organized activities.
>
Atheists may engage in political actions.
That is their right in a democracy.
They have these rights as individuals.
Not as "atheists".
>> >8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g. via:
>> >http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
>> Many atheists keep to themselves.
>> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
>
>And yet its contents are often quoted by atheists to support their positions
>in arguments.
>
Sure! I use it myself.
Individual atheists like to occassionally find others of like mind and
exchange ideas.
Its a human impulse.
Humans are gregarious creatures.
Model train enthusiests also congregate and communicate.
>> So we have (3) as genuine and the rest as false attributions.
>> (Straw men)
>
>I accept that all but (3) represent the minimum ideal philosophy to which
>atheists subscribe. If only a tiny minority of atheists practice the other
>points, then I concede that they are not characteristics of Atheism, but
>only characteristics of some atheists.
>
Thank You!
That is what I was trying to get accross.
>On the other hand, if a significant number of atheists engage in these or
>other activities designed to communicate, promulgate or support atheism,
>then it is clear that these activities constitute some form of organization
>towards a goal. Such activity constitutes a movement.
>
American Atheists Inc may be such a group.
Here on alt atheism we are just individuals.
I.E.
American Atheists would be A atheist movement.
They are not THE atheist movement.
Do you see the difference?
>It might not be fair to say that Atheism was a movement, but that a
>particular set of unnamed activities constitutes an atheist movement if
>those who practice it are mostly atheists, or if it advances atheist
>philosophy.
>
Sure there are possibly one or more atheist movements but none
represent me.
I represent me.
>As far as the denial of theism is concerned, it seems to be the practice of
>most atheists in this newsgroup, wouldn't you agree?
>
Well, if I was to be pedantic I would say theism is definitely real!
We come here because we live in a world dominated by religious
thought.
We come here to find like minded people.
It is true that , some of us come here to "pick a fight" with theists.
I come here for a mixture of reasons.
Some times I even learn something new!
>Perhaps there are active atheists and passive atheists. Perhaps most
>atheists in this newsgroup are active atheists?
>
That would be fair.
I have atheist friends who would think it quite bizzare that I bother
telling stangers, on the other side of the world, about "my atheism" .
Most just shrug it off and get on with their lives.
>> But we live and learn do we not?
>
>Hopefully.
>
Peace! , Mark.
(Sorry this post is so long I felt I wanted to reply fully. Feel free
to <snip> if you wish to reply!)
Andres64
Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi> wrote in
message
news:Petteri.Sulonen-...@sirmakka.in.helsinki.fi...
> In article <nz9n3.59252$vw1.2...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel
> Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> [snip discussion]
>
>>>>(FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
>>>>word atheist.)
>>>Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
>>Nonsense. A movement implies a program. The a.a numbers are just a way
>>of counting the atheists active on the NG. We have no agenda, no
>>program, and no common philosophy. The only common characteristic that
>>we share is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
>No common philosophy?
>Of course your statement below is a doctrine of a philosophy. Atheism
fits into >2c, 3a, 3b, and 4a below.
...snip irrelevant BS...
I don't agree with your statement that "Atheism is a philosophy of one
doctrine."
But, just for the sake of discussion, let's assume you are right. That
still does not make atheism a religion. Why don't you just look at the
definition of religion? Could it be because you might see that atheism
does not fit under the definition of religion?
As you can see (hopefully), atheism is not a religion. It is NOT the
state of a religious as evidenced by the definitions below. It is NOT
the service and worship of god or the supernatural. It is NOT a
commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance as evidenced by
the definitions below. It is NOT a personal set or institutionalized
system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. It is NOT a
cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Do you get it now?
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps
from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2)
: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective
Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin
religiosus, from religio
Date: 13th century
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
>>>>Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible
>>>>you were (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that
>>>>atheism was/is a religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's
>>>>simply a label we use to distinguish ourselves from the misguided
>>>>fools who believe god exists.
>>>Atheism is a movement in that it has membership (even membership
>>>numbers). Kind of like being a Libertarian or Freemason.
>>Libertarianism is a philosophy (of sorts). Freemasonry is a club, with
>>very strict entrance requirements, rites, etc. etc. The a.a numbers
>>are_not_ like this.
>> [snip rest of misinformation]
>>:Whatever you, Daniel, may think atheism "implies" is your business.
>>The fact is that you're trying to lump, say, a Libertarian and a
>>Bolshevik into the same group. Which _just_ _doesn't_ _work_.
>Atheists share at least the following properties:
>1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are
>evidence of that.
Wrong. There are no activities. It simply a way to count and
differentiate.
>2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
>school)
Wrong. The desire to remove prayer from school is based on the desire to
see the Constitution upheld. You know, separation of church and all?
...snip more irrelevant BS about definitions of irrelevant words...
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a
dose of common sense.
-Chapman Cohen
--
Sincerely,
Andres
You always have a choice.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Angelico
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> pressed the bag of pus he insists on
calling brain and wrote:
=You seem to be saying that atheists can only define themselves in reference
=to a Supreme Being of some sort. The one that they don't believe in. In
=other words, an atheist must first postulate that there is a god before they
=can not believe in it.
You seem to have a six inch thick skull. We define ourselves in
reference to what you assert is a Supreme Being. Put the definition
(of course, you can't put such Supreme Being) of anyone of them in
front of us and we won't believe in that being. Not "the one we don't
believe in", but ANY supernatural being. You are the only deluded who
postulates that there is a god. And no matter how you define it, we
don't believe in it. Any god, from xtianity, judaism, hinduism,
animism... little green men, fairies, leprechauns, elves, hobbits,
demons... All of them fall in the same category: fantasy.
=
=It seems to me to be a very pathetic world view which can't even stand on
=it's own merits, but can only be understood in context of what it tries to
=negate. No wonder that it is a failure.. even atheism (as a philosophy) can
=not stand upright and independant from god.
Try to not slap our faces with your sky bully and you'll see whether
we are independent from it. I've never seen a god, nor, since I
managed to free myself from the chains of religion, felt the need for
one to have a clear view of this world.
=
=In fact, most atheists are so desperate to have a god not to believe in that
=they fabricate one from fiction, mix in a few historic and outdated
=misapprehensions, stir with a generous amount of slander and distortion, and
=wah-lah...an instant god that is not worthy of being worshipped.
There aren't any gods, worthy or unworthy of being worshipped. The
only desperate moron I've seen here is you, trying to get some support
for your pathetic god and making strawmen about other's thoughts. I
don't know what flavor of theism do you follow, but I'm pretty sure
that the idea you worship is as despicable as any other.
=
=So my question is entirely reasonable.
So your question is a load of bullshit, or as we say here, una mierda
como un piano, that's a piano-sized turd.
=
=What sort of god is it that atheists don't have a belief in?
Anyone that makes stupid people like you ask incoherent questions like
this one.
--
Angel Arnal
Valencia, España
http://www.teleline.es/personal/angelarn/
aa #1443 BAAWA!
EAC Chairperson for Bible Translation Mess-up
Seven new inconsistences added! Can you find them?
---
Be always distrustful of those who read only a book.
Arturo Pérez Reverte.
---
Remove my opinion on spam to email me.
Petteri Sulonen
<dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
> Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi> wrote in message
> news:Petteri.Sulonen-...@sluuppi.in.helsinki.fi...
> > In article <EBPn3.1643$x7.1...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel Pflager"
> > <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > You really seem to enjoy arguing about semantics, don't you?
> > >
> > > I've no choice, since that all that atheism seems to come down to.
> >
> > Uh, atheism only comes down to semantics? Please explain.
>
> Wasn't it you who denied that Atheism is a philosophy, has concepts, or is a
> theory?
Yes, I deny that atheism is a philosophy, has concepts (plural), or is a
theory. Of course, it seems that you're discussing Atheism, with a capital
A, that you've invented yourself. If that's the case, you're welcome to it
-- but I hereby declare publicly that I am not an Atheist, only an
atheist.
[snip]
> > OK, let's accept that atheism is a concept. However, it's a concept in
> > many different, mutually incompatible philosophies.
>
> That atheism may be a component of another philosophy is possible, but that
> doesn't invalidate the point that atheism is itself a philosophy of at least
> one concept.
OK. Atheism is a philosophy of one concept. Now what?
> > If I accept that atheism is a philosophy, do you accept that theism is a
> > philosophy and a 'movement' too?
>
> Of course.
>
> > That would lump you in the same
> > 'movement' as Osama ben Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Jerry Falwell,
> > Yasir Arafat, David ben Gurion, and His Holiness the Pope.
>
> Unfortunately, yes. We are all theists.
OK. In that case, by your definitions, atheism is a philosophy and a
movement. It's a pity your definitions aren't too useful, as they lead to
such absurd results.
(Hint: take a poll of your fellow theists, and see how many of them agree
that they belong to the same philosophy and movement as the characters
listed above.)
Your non-point is hereby granted.
[snip large chunk of argument of same non-point]
> > > As atheists, they are part of the atheist movement called Atheism.
> >
> > ...which has exactly which common goals, common organized activity, etc.?
>
> 1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
...which is "lack of belief in a god or gods?" OK, I belong to that
'movement', inasmuch as I post on a.a and, lo and behold, occasionally
even discuss it in RL. However, lots of atheists don't.
> 2) Association and solidarity with other Atheists.
Again, admitted -- inasmuch as I post on a.a.
> 3) Denial of theist beliefs.
For myself, yes.
> 4) Common expression of scorn for some theists (evidence follows):
>
> Because, idiot, atheists do not describe themselves in terms
> of God at all-- they describe themselves in terms of believers. To be
> frank, Starbuck, it is *you* who is the target of atheism, you and
> every other theist. We think you're insane for beleiving in your
> mysterious sky pixie for which there is not a shred of proof, a scrap
> of evidence, or a reason for consideration.
I didn't write that. I also wouldn't have written it.
I do express scorn for some people -- but *not* because they are theists,
but because they are fanatics or pompous asses. Most fanatics or pompous
asses on a.a are theists -- but if you search my posting history, you'll
find that I've expressed similar scorn for, say, Dark Fader (a pompous ass
of an atheist).
> 5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
Ch'yeah.
> 6) Policing of the definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists.
Don't do that. Much, anyway.
> 7) Participating in anti-deity actions. e.g. Abolishing School-Endorsed
> Prayer, Removal of the word "God" from the Canadian Constitution, Removal or
> defacement of "In God we trust" from money.
Have done none of the above. May possibly some day work for first of those
points.
> 8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g. via:
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
Never wrote anything there. Never even looked at it.
Okay, Daniel -- it seems that you've built yourself a strawman "Atheism"
(capital A) and ascribed all kinds of features to it. Whatever gets you
through the night -- but be sure to make clear when you're discussing
plain atheism and when "Atheism".
Daniel Pflager
> In article <bA4o3.7616$x7.3...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel Pflager"
> <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi> wrote in
message
> > news:Petteri.Sulonen-...@sluuppi.in.helsinki.fi...
> > > In article <EBPn3.1643$x7.1...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel
Pflager"
> > > <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > You really seem to enjoy arguing about semantics, don't you?
> > > >
> > > > I've no choice, since that all that atheism seems to come down to.
> > >
> > > Uh, atheism only comes down to semantics? Please explain.
> >
> > Wasn't it you who denied that Atheism is a philosophy, has concepts, or
is a
> > theory?
>
> theory. Of course, it seems that you're discussing Atheism, with a capital
> A, that you've invented yourself. If that's the case, you're welcome to it
> -- but I hereby declare publicly that I am not an Atheist, only an
> atheist.
> [snip]
Okay then, let's work that concept.
> > > OK, let's accept that atheism is a concept. However, it's a concept in
> > > many different, mutually incompatible philosophies.
> >
> > That atheism may be a component of another philosophy is possible, but
that
> > doesn't invalidate the point that atheism is itself a philosophy of at
least
> > one concept.
>
> OK. Atheism is a philosophy of one concept. Now what?
At least one concept. Now we need to figure out whether Atheism is a
movement.
> > > If I accept that atheism is a philosophy, do you accept that theism is
a
> > > philosophy and a 'movement' too?
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > > That would lump you in the same
> > > 'movement' as Osama ben Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Jerry
Falwell,
> > > Yasir Arafat, David ben Gurion, and His Holiness the Pope.
> >
> > Unfortunately, yes. We are all theists.
>
> OK. In that case, by your definitions, atheism is a philosophy and a
> movement. It's a pity your definitions aren't too useful, as they lead to
> such absurd results.
>
> (Hint: take a poll of your fellow theists, and see how many of them agree
> that they belong to the same philosophy and movement as the characters
> listed above.)
We're not going to do the Scotsman thing are we?
> Your non-point is hereby granted.
> [snip large chunk of argument of same non-point]
>
> > > > As atheists, they are part of the atheist movement called Atheism.
> > >
> > > ...which has exactly which common goals, common organized activity,
etc.?
> >
> > 1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
>
> ...which is "lack of belief in a god or gods?" OK, I belong to that
> 'movement', inasmuch as I post on a.a and, lo and behold, occasionally
> even discuss it in RL. However, lots of atheists don't.
Lots of Christians don't pray to Mary. Are they no longer Christians?
> > 2) Association and solidarity with other Atheists.
>
> Again, admitted -- inasmuch as I post on a.a.
>
> > 3) Denial of theist beliefs.
>
> For myself, yes.
>
> > 4) Common expression of scorn for some theists (evidence follows):
> >
> > Because, idiot, atheists do not describe themselves in terms
> > of God at all-- they describe themselves in terms of believers. To
be
> > frank, Starbuck, it is *you* who is the target of atheism, you and
> > every other theist. We think you're insane for beleiving in your
> > mysterious sky pixie for which there is not a shred of proof, a
scrap
> > of evidence, or a reason for consideration.
>
> I didn't write that. I also wouldn't have written it.
I respect that.
> I do express scorn for some people -- but *not* because they are theists,
> but because they are fanatics or pompous asses. Most fanatics or pompous
> asses on a.a are theists -- but if you search my posting history, you'll
> find that I've expressed similar scorn for, say, Dark Fader (a pompous ass
> of an atheist).
>
> > 5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
>
> Ch'yeah.
Are there no more atheist numbers being allocated? Will there likely be?
> > 6) Policing of the definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists.
>
> Don't do that. Much, anyway.
>
> > 7) Participating in anti-deity actions. e.g. Abolishing School-Endorsed
> > Prayer, Removal of the word "God" from the Canadian Constitution,
Removal or
> > defacement of "In God we trust" from money.
>
> Have done none of the above. May possibly some day work for first of those
> points.
>
> > 8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g. via:
> > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
>
> Never wrote anything there. Never even looked at it.
Still, someone spent quite a lot of time writing it. Some non-atheists
(including myself) have been exposed to it by recommendation of atheists.
> Okay, Daniel -- it seems that you've built yourself a strawman "Atheism"
> (capital A) and ascribed all kinds of features to it. Whatever gets you
> through the night -- but be sure to make clear when you're discussing
> plain atheism and when "Atheism".
Okay. So can we agree then that Atheism is a philosophy, a movement and that
only atheists subscribe to Atheism.
Is that right?
Jeff Heidman
Daniel Pflager wrote:
> Jeff Heidman <je...@webfxREMOVETHIS2k.com> wrote in message
> news:37A0E5FD...@webfxREMOVETHIS2k.com...
> >
> >
> > Daniel Pflager wrote:
> >
> > > Starbuck <pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:7nq7nu$hus$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > >>>And you're an even bigger idiot - BECAUSE YOU ARROGANTLY
> > > > INSIST THAT YOU KNOW BETTER THAN WE DO WHAT OUR OWN ATHEISM
> > > > MEANS TO US.<<<
> > > >
> > > > 1. I am not an idiot.
> > >
> > > Starbuck is most definitely NOT AN IDIOT!
> > >
> > > Such Ad Hominem attacks are, I believe, evidence that the attacker is
> well
> > > outside his comfort zone.
> >
> > Do you know what an Ad Hominen attack is?
> >
> > The statement "You are a moron" is not an Ad Hominen attack. An AH attack
> is an
> > attack on an argument through disparaging of the arguer.
> >
> > (a) "You are a stupid moron who couldn't reason his way out of a paper
> bag"
> >
> > (for example) is merely a statement about someone's perceived intelligence
> or
> > reasoning skills.
>
> That's right. It is presumbly presented in response to some stimulus, unless
> the person saying it has a mental problem.
So? That does not make it Ad Hominen.
> The simulus was, without question, one or more statements or arguments
> previous which resulted in the frustration of the person saying it.
Again, that does not make it Ad Hominen.
> Looking at it another way, there is an implicit prefix of "Your point is
> wrong because..." to all such statements, as in:
No there isn't. You are just reading one in so you can run around crying about
being attacked.
> "Your point is wrong because you are a stupid moron who couldn't reason his
> way out of a paper bag."
If that is what was said, then it would be Ad Hominen. But that is not what was
said in that case, or this one.
> The effect is the same, with or without the prefix.
No it isn't. The "prefix" exists only in your mind. It is not implied.
> > (b)"Your point is wrong because you are a stupid, ignorant, piece of
> filth"
> >
> > would be an Ad Hominen attack.
>
> This is an Ad Hominem attack with an explicit prefix.
Yep.
> > Now, quite often people state (a) in response to a given argument,
> presumably
> > because their argument is providing evidence for (a), but that is
> certainly not
> > an Ad Hominen attack, since the statement in and of itself is independent
> of the
> > argument.
>
> So you figure they were just calling Starbuck names for fun?
Well, yes actually. People do that all the time. Maybe not him in particular.
Here someone is making a new argument.
For instance, if I said, "i dun believe in Gawd because my momma said that he
came down and talked to hur in a spaceship from Venus last Tuesday"
someone might draw the conclusion that I am a simpleton, or that my mother was
crazy.
Neither observation would be an Ad Hominen attack on the argument that I
proposed, i.e. that God exists.
This is a pretty simple distinction.
> > You should understand the basics of logical fallacies before you make
> yourself
> > look like (a).
>
> That's a good example of an Ad Hominem statement.
Not at all. It is a good example of drawing a conclusion about your ability to
form a logical argument, using as evidence your inability to understand a simple
concept like an AD Hominen attack.
Now you continue to provide more evidence to support that argument.
> Who says the argument has to be explicit.
Nobody. But you should understand basic English and how the language works.
Me saying that your statement A is evidence of B is not the same thing as me
saying that B is evidence for the falsity of A.
> Your argument is that I am
> misusing the term Ad Hominem, and your "support" for the argument was an Ad
> Hominem fallacy.
Bzzt. Look it up. Please continue to argue your point, as each clearly wrong
assertion on your point continues to strengthen my basic premise.
Jeff
Elf Sternberg
"Daniel Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> writes:
>My statements constitute evidence to support my assertion that Atheism is
>not only a philosophly, but a movement. In other words, a philosophy with a
>common agenda of some kind.
None of the things you mentioned, though, are a necessity of
atheism. (And will you *please* stop capitalizing it. It's not a
proper noun.) Therefore, they one can do none of the things you
mentioned and still be an atheist.
Besides, you're hanging out on a newsgroup full of atheists.
What do you expect?
>I have heard many atheists saying that theism is evil because Christians
>once burned people at the stake. It is obviously not necessary to burn
>people at the stake to be Christian.
It would seem to me that to be a "good Christian," a "real
Christian," one must follow the edicts of God. One of his edicts is
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." A lot of Christians took
that literally at one time, and a lot of us our nervous that, given a
chance, you all will take it literally again.
On the other hand, atheism has nothing to be nervous about.
>Smoking cigarettes has little to do with Christianity, but helping abolish
>led prayer in schools clearly has something to do with Atheism.
Actually, abolishing prayer in schools by a select group is
about honoring the rights of those who are not in the select group. A
case in point was the Graduation Prayer at Duvall County High in
Florida. One woman chose not to rise when the supposedly "voluntary"
prayer was initiated, and one gentle Christian, concerned for her
soul, told her, "Stand up, you stupid bitch!"
That's why prayer is disallowed in schools. Not because we
want atheisms to be the only thing practiced, but because we want
nobody to feel compelled to participate or discomfitted if they do
not. I don't mind Buddhist students; I mind a Buddhist teacher
telling Christian students that they should meditate rather than
pray.
>I have witnessed strongly emotional assertions to the contrary.
Then you're witnessing the debate, rather than any purported
"policing."
>And yet its contents are often quoted by atheists to support their positions
>in arguments.
So? They're useful to our position, which we who are active
in defending ourselves from the theistic majority, participate in. We
have no agenda (other than our continued survival and right to speak
our minds, which we would hope we share with most human beings, rather
than think of them as an aspect of atheism).
>On the other hand, if a significant number of atheists engage in these or
>other activities designed to communicate, promulgate or support atheism,
>then it is clear that these activities constitute some form of organization
>towards a goal. Such activity constitutes a movement.
Daniel, dear boy, you are on a newsgroup, the intended purpose
of which, is to discuss atheism. Getting your opinions on atheists
from this newsgroup is a little like getting your opinion on Judaism
from soc.culture.judaism. You're basing your opinions on a community
self-selected for its volume and participation.
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/
Starbuck
what transpires shall we?<<<
It may be rather presumptuous of you... but I'm willing to accept the
compliment. :-)
>>>Consider this:
To a believer "refutation of God" has a definite meaning.
Clearly you have a God to refute!
To a non believer what does "refutation of God" mean?????
The definition as presented has a "cultural" bias.
(Like the classic definition I saw in an oxford english dictionary
once
Foreigner : Not British !<<<
Perhaps it's genetic, and those of us with British heritage (albeit 2 or 3
centuries removed) are inherently arrogant and self referential? I'll
concede for the sake of argument that such is the case. <BG>
Be that as it may, words have meanings. If someone describes themself as an
atheist, then they need to know what it is that they are calling themself.
The term "atheist" is commonly confused with that of "agnostic". Both are
from the Greek
and the root word is combined with a' which is a contraction with means a
refutation.
theos, theh'-os, Greek Stg 2316; of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially
(with Greek 3588 (ho)) the supreme Divinity; figurative a magistrate; by
Hebrew very :- в exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
ginosko, ghin-oce'-ko, Greek Stg 1097; a prolonged form of a primary verb;
to "know" (absolute), in a great variety of applications and with many
implication (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed) :- allow, be
aware (of), feel, (have) know (-ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be
sure, understand.
So following the etymology of the word, it supports the idea that an
"atheist" is one who asserts that there clearly is no god, while an agnostic
doesn't know whether there is a god or not, but perhaps is reasonable enough
to keep an open mind, and to examine the evidence objectively.
Atheism is antithetical to logic and reason because it holds forth a premise
as being conclusively true, despite a lack of supporting evidence.
Starbuck
don't believe in it. Any god, from xtianity, judaism, hinduism,
animism... little green men, fairies, leprechauns, elves, hobbits,
demons... All of them fall in the same category: fantasy.<<<
What about a natural god? Recall that the ancients often endowed their
tribal leadership with the status of god. The Egyptians made it into a
major industry.
Are there any natural gods that you worship? Yourself, for example?
>>>There aren't any gods, worthy or unworthy of being worshipped. The
only desperate moron I've seen here is you, trying to get some support
for your pathetic god and making strawmen about other's thoughts. I
don't know what flavor of theism do you follow, but I'm pretty sure
that the idea you worship is as despicable as any other.<<<
I believe that is called "prejudice". It's the mark of an opinionated fool.
You aren't really that foolish are you? Do you really believe that all
ideas are of equal (low) merit? If so, why bother to entertain one for even
a moment?
Daniel Pflager
> On 29 Jul 1999 22:57:10 -0500, "Daniel Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Mark Richardson <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> >news:37a1069d...@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
> >> On 29 Jul 1999 17:31:16 -0500, "Daniel Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >My statements constitute evidence to support my assertion that Atheism is
> >not only a philosophly, but a movement. In other words, a philosophy with
a
> >common agenda of some kind.
> >
> They fail to constitute evidence of such.
According to what criteria?
> >> >1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
> >> Many atheists (Most?) keep there belief to themselves.
> >> Therefore, this is not a necessary component of atheism.
> >
> >I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by
quite
> >a few atheists.
> >
> You agree.
> That is the critical part.
It is not a necessity, but it is practiced by quite a few atheists.
> >> >2) Association and solidarity with other Atheists.
> >> Many atheists keep to themselves.
> >> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
> >
> >I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by
quite
> >a few atheists.
> >
> Ditto.
It is not a necessity, but it is practiced by quite a few atheists.
> >> >3) Denial of theist beliefs.
> >> This is what makes someone an atheist.
> >> (Or, more correctly, what makes someone NOTICIBLY an atheist.)
> >
> >I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by
quite
> >a few atheists.
> ? Cut and pasting gone mad here! <Laugh>
> Please allow me to agree with you!
It is not a necessity, but it is practiced by quite a few atheists.
> >
> >> >4) Common expression of scorn for some theists (evidence follows):
> >> Many atheists keep to themselves.
> >> This is not a necessary component of atheism.
> >
> >I agree that it is not a necessity of Atheism, yet it is practiced by
quite
> >a few atheists.
It is not a necessity, but it is practiced by quite a few atheists.
> >> [Equivalent statement - for illustration -
> >> I saw a christian smoking a cigarette once therefore smoking
> >> cigarettes is an element of being a christian.
> >> Can you spot the logical fallacy being employed in all but one of your
> >> (8) points? ]
> >
> >I have heard many atheists saying that theism is evil because Christians
> >once burned people at the stake. It is obviously not necessary to burn
> >people at the stake to be Christian.
> >
> Two things
> Fistly.
> "You did it first!" or "You did it too!"
> is not an excuse even when attempted by 8 year olds.
I agree.
> Secondly.
> The point of saying that christians burned people at the stake is to
> give a real world example of where christianity FAILS to make people
> more moral.
> Not to say "all christians are immoral - here is an example" - which
> is how you are interpreting it.
> That would be wrong.
> If and when I see such an "argument" being attempted I jump on it like
> a ton of bricks.
Yet it is the practice of quite a few atheist posters here.
> I know personally a few fine and moral christians.
> I know by reputation many others.
> That does not wipe out the reality of crimes committed by christians
> in the name of their God.
>
> If religion does not make us better people what is it for?
Does atheism make you better people. I mean, is that part of the reason for
subscribing to it?
> >I am not talking about one-of activities or observations, but patterns in
> >the behaviour of atheists, and in particular behaviours which promulgate
> >atheism OR deny theism (which is Atheism).
> >
> >Smoking cigarettes has little to do with Christianity, but helping
abolish
> >led prayer in schools clearly has something to do with Atheism.
> It may do.
> One possible motive for fighting teacher led prayer in schools is a
> committment to atheism.
Yes.
> It may also spring from a desire to keep the government out of
> religious affairs.
One does not have to be an atheist to desire this.
> Is it the proper role of the government of a democracy to tell its
> citizens when and how to worship?
Of course not.
> I (an atheist) say no.
> I have christian friends who agree with me on this point.
As do I.
> >Abolishing
> >led prayer is denying one particular facet of one particular variety of
> >theism (Christian). So the atheists that did rather actively denied
theism,
> >didn't they?
> No.
> They are trying to assure the rights of all, not just the christian
> students.
> The rights of christian children should not be at the expense of the
> rights of non christians.
> Mutual respect for all is what is required.
Understood.
> >> >5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
> >> I explained this one already in detail.
> >> (Did you read my post? Or are you are being willfully ignorant?)
> >>
> >> I am an atheist. I don't have a atheist number.
> >> So you are claiming either:
> >> (1) I am not an atheist.
> >> (care to tell me which God I worship?)
> >>
> >> (2) I have a number but don't know about it or i am lying.
> >
> >I have read your post. Are you saying that there are no further atheist
> >numbers ever to be allocated? Atheist numbering is therefore closed?
> >
> No! I am saying that the atheist numbers are a feature of this
> newsgroup not of atheism, just as cigarette smoking is the habit of a
> particular christian not a requirement of christianity.
> Furthermore it is a kind of Joke!
> It's for fun!
> The numbers have no status.
> They have no sinister "meaning".
Ok.
> >> Which of these are you claiming?
> >> Or are you prepared to acknowledge your mistake now?
> >
> >If what you are saying is that Atheism is devoid of all of the points
that
> >I've suggested, and assuming your viewpoint represents the reality of
> >atheist practice, then Atheism is not a movement, it is simply a
philosophy.
> >
> Thank You!
>
> An atheist MAY have point (3) as an attribute.
> OR he may have (3) and (5)
> OR he may have (2),(3),(4)
> OR he may have (2),(3),(4) and enjoy baseball games.
>
> Each is as "true" an atheist as any other.
>
> Some atheists are highly intelligent, some are idiots.
> Some are agresive some are passive.
>
> If a single concept can be classed a philosophy then so be it.
> Personally I would say that atheism was one facet of MY philosophy.
> If someone asked me my philosophy on "life the universe and
> everything" I would possibly mention that I am an atheist but more
> likely the listener would have to deduce the fact from my response.
This is reasonable.
> Also I have never seen another single belief or idea labelled a
> "philosophy" except perhaps as a debating technique!
Touche'
Ok!
Not at all.
A pleasure to talk with you,
Elf Sternberg
"Starbuck" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>1. I am not an idiot.
You are when you argue about the meaning of 'atheist' in this
fashion. If you are not an atheist, I don't accept that you have the
right to define what I am in terms I do not agree with.
>2. The word "atheist" has a meaning, and it's meaning is in context
>to a refutation of god. If you wish to describe yourself in
>reference to believers, then please pick another word that expresses
>your meaning more concisely.
I don't have to. Would you contend that apolitical people
need to find a term other than 'politic' with which to describe
themselves? The term 'atheist' is a perfectly serviceable term to
describe what I am: one who does not believe what theists believe. I
am an a-theist.
So, Starbuck, what do you believe?
Daniel Pflager
news:7nsm0s$p9e$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> >not only a philosophly, but a movement. In other words, a philosophy with
a
> >common agenda of some kind.
>
> atheism. (And will you *please* stop capitalizing it. It's not a
> proper noun.) Therefore, they one can do none of the things you
> mentioned and still be an atheist.
I accept this.
> Besides, you're hanging out on a newsgroup full of atheists.
> What do you expect?
<chuckle>
> >I have heard many atheists saying that theism is evil because Christians
> >once burned people at the stake. It is obviously not necessary to burn
> >people at the stake to be Christian.
>
> It would seem to me that to be a "good Christian," a "real
> Christian," one must follow the edicts of God. One of his edicts is
> "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." A lot of Christians took
> that literally at one time, and a lot of us our nervous that, given a
> chance, you all will take it literally again.
That is a problem. I acknowledge that. I would certainly not want to see
that kind of doctrine practiced.
> On the other hand, atheism has nothing to be nervous about.
I agree.
> >Smoking cigarettes has little to do with Christianity, but helping
abolish
> >led prayer in schools clearly has something to do with Atheism.
>
> Actually, abolishing prayer in schools by a select group is
> about honoring the rights of those who are not in the select group. A
> case in point was the Graduation Prayer at Duvall County High in
> Florida. One woman chose not to rise when the supposedly "voluntary"
> prayer was initiated, and one gentle Christian, concerned for her
> soul, told her, "Stand up, you stupid bitch!"
That was very un-Christian of her.
> That's why prayer is disallowed in schools. Not because we
> want atheisms to be the only thing practiced, but because we want
> nobody to feel compelled to participate or discomfitted if they do
> not. I don't mind Buddhist students; I mind a Buddhist teacher
> telling Christian students that they should meditate rather than
> pray.
This is a good point.
> >I have witnessed strongly emotional assertions to the contrary.
>
> Then you're witnessing the debate, rather than any purported
> "policing."
>
> >And yet its contents are often quoted by atheists to support their
positions
> >in arguments.
>
> So? They're useful to our position, which we who are active
> in defending ourselves from the theistic majority, participate in. We
> have no agenda (other than our continued survival and right to speak
> our minds, which we would hope we share with most human beings, rather
> than think of them as an aspect of atheism).
>
> >On the other hand, if a significant number of atheists engage in these or
> >other activities designed to communicate, promulgate or support atheism,
> >then it is clear that these activities constitute some form of
organization
> >towards a goal. Such activity constitutes a movement.
>
> Daniel, dear boy, you are on a newsgroup, the intended purpose
> of which, is to discuss atheism. Getting your opinions on atheists
> from this newsgroup is a little like getting your opinion on Judaism
> from soc.culture.judaism. You're basing your opinions on a community
> self-selected for its volume and participation.
Good point. Still, I've found some reasonable people, such as yourself, Elf,
here.
Daniel Pflager
news:7nslk3$mui$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <bBmn3.62085$vw1.2...@newscene.newscene.com>,
> "Daniel Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> Petteri Sulonen <Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi> wrote in
> message
> > In article <nz9n3.59252$vw1.2...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel
> > Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
> >
> > [snip discussion]
> >
> >>>>(FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> >>>>word atheist.)
> >>>Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
> >>Nonsense. A movement implies a program. The a.a numbers are just a way
> >>of counting the atheists active on the NG. We have no agenda, no
> >>program, and no common philosophy. The only common characteristic that
> >No common philosophy?
>
<snip Ad Hominem>
> I don't agree with your statement that "Atheism is a philosophy of one
> doctrine."
>
> But, just for the sake of discussion, let's assume you are right. That
> still does not make atheism a religion. Why don't you just look at the
> definition of religion? Could it be because you might see that atheism
> does not fit under the definition of religion?
I was never arguing that Atheism was a religion, but since you bring it
up...
Atheism is at least one principle, maybe even more. I've defined it in set
algebra as one principle and two definitions. That atheists subscribe to
atheist principles with ardor and faith is the question.
Let U be all beliefs
Let D be all beliefs in deity
atheism = D' = U - D
Let say, for sake of argument that atheism consists on one principle only.
Namely the last definition.
Do atheists subscribe to their principle with ardor and faith?
Certainly a great many seem to subscribe to their principle with ardor, and
all subscribe to their principle with faith.
> As you can see (hopefully), atheism is not a religion. It is NOT the
> state of a religious as evidenced by the definitions below. It is NOT
> the service and worship of god or the supernatural. It is NOT a
> commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance as evidenced by
> the definitions below. It is NOT a personal set or institutionalized
> system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. It is NOT a
> cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
>
> Do you get it now?
I would conclude that atheism IS, in fact, a religion in the sense of item 4
below.
> Main Entry: re·li·gion
> Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio
> supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps
> from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
> Date: 13th century
> 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b
> (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2)
> : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
> 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes,
> beliefs, and practices
> 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
> 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
> faith
> - re·li·gion·less adjective
>
> >Atheists share at least the following properties:
>
> >1) Organized activity or activities. Your membership numbers are
> >evidence of that.
>
> Wrong. There are no activities. It simply a way to count and
> differentiate.
Counting and diferentiation ARE activities, silly.
> >2) Also, organized effort to promote an end (as in removal prayer from
> >school)
>
> Wrong. The desire to remove prayer from school is based on the desire to
> see the Constitution upheld. You know, separation of church and all?
I accept that one need not be an atheist, and that not all atheists
subscribe to this view.
> ...snip more irrelevant BS about definitions of irrelevant words...
BS, I assume, means Brilliant Statements.
> Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a
> dose of common sense.
> -Chapman Cohen
Obedientia et Pax,
Daniel Pflager
Mark Richardson
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>Consider this:
>To a believer "refutation of God" has a definite meaning.
>Clearly you have a God to refute!
>To a non believer what does "refutation of God" mean?????
>The definition as presented has a "cultural" bias.
>(Like the classic definition I saw in an oxford english dictionary
>once
>Foreigner : Not British !<<<
>
<Snip>
>Be that as it may, words have meanings.
Yes.
(Sometimes several, which is why in philosophical debate it is
important to sate up - front which definition you are using before you
start.)
> If someone describes themself as an
>atheist, then they need to know what it is that they are calling themself.
Exactly.
>The term "atheist" is commonly confused with that of "agnostic". Both are
>from the Greek
>and the root word is combined with a' which is a contraction with means a
>refutation.
>
The term Agnostic was coined by the englishman Thomas Huxley in a
speech he gave to the Royal Philosophical Society in ~1870.
The Gnostic's were early christian mystics (and heretics) who amongst
other things were concerned with secret knowledge (Gnosis).
The "knowledge" of the Gnostic is a spiritual knowledge whereas the
knowledge that Huxley was referring to was empirical knowledge.
An agnostic believes that the question of the existence of a supreme
creator God is not answerable by "scientific" means.
>
>theos, theh'-os, Greek Stg 2316; of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially
>(with Greek 3588 (ho)) the supreme Divinity; figurative a magistrate; by
>Hebrew very :- в exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
>
>ginosko, ghin-oce'-ko, Greek Stg 1097; a prolonged form of a primary verb;
>to "know" (absolute), in a great variety of applications and with many
>implication (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed) :- allow, be
>aware (of), feel, (have) know (-ledge), perceive, be resolved, can speak, be
>sure, understand.
>
>So following the etymology of the word, it supports the idea that an
>"atheist" is one who asserts that there clearly is no god, while an agnostic
>doesn't know whether there is a god or not, but perhaps is reasonable enough
>to keep an open mind, and to examine the evidence objectively.
>
>Atheism is antithetical to logic and reason because it holds forth a premise
>as being conclusively true, despite a lack of supporting evidence.
No.
That is incorrect.
the prefix a- means without.
An atheist is without a god.
Myself for example:
I have no god.
I believe in no god.
Now a person who stated that there definitely was no god would also be
an atheist as he would obviously not have a god.
Equally obviously such people would be a subset of all people who had
no god (a subset of atheists)
Again myself as an example:
I don't state "There is certainly no God" as I would not know what the
sentence is purporting to assert, and since no one can give me a
rational, comprehensible description of "God" there is nothing to
reject.
I can however say "I do not believe in a God" which is a simple true
statement of my current position.
An agnostic is NOT
"one who doesn't know whether there is a god or not, but perhaps is
reasonable enough to keep an open mind, and to examine the evidence
objectively."
An agnostic is one who claimsthat it is not possible to have objective
evidence and hence objective knowledge of God. IE that belief in God
is strictly a matter of faith not evidence or reason.
Agnostic is not some middle ground between atheism and belief.
I am an agnostic (towards sufficiently vaguely defined gods) and also
an atheist.
The vast majority of people who self descibe as "atheist" mean simply
"I dont believe in a God".
I hope this helps.
Mark.
Brian Hartman
Mark Richardson wrote:
I think religion serves two purposes:
1) It gives meaning to life for people upset at the idea that you live for a
certain number of years, work all you can, and in the end you just die and
obliterate.
2) In ye olden times it was used as a whip against the people to exercise
governmental control. One of the reasons society is so chaotic is that the
church no longer has that power, and thus can't hold it over people. This is the
common mistake of those who want prayer in the schools: The assumption is that
it will persuade people to behave differently. But without a real central
authority (even the Pope is a figurehead in modern times) there's no *reason* to
behave differently. Everyone now has their own idea of god, and everyone's god
approves of their actions.
Personally, I see no problem with voluntary, silent prayer. I think it's
important what this time is called, though. A name for the period of time has to
be found that's neutral in terms of religious significance.
Petteri Sulonen
In article <l4ko3.11650$x7.4...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel Pflager"
<dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip]
> > > That atheism may be a component of another philosophy is possible, but
> that
> > > doesn't invalidate the point that atheism is itself a philosophy of at
> least
> > > one concept.
> >
> > OK. Atheism is a philosophy of one concept. Now what?
>
> At least one concept. Now we need to figure out whether Atheism is a
> movement.
At *most* one concept. You have said all sorts of things about "Atheism"
which I can't argue about ("Atheism" being your own invention). Plain
atheism, however, has at _most_ one concept. Again, now what?
[snip]
> > > > That would lump you in the same
> > > > 'movement' as Osama ben Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Jerry
> Falwell,
> > > > Yasir Arafat, David ben Gurion, and His Holiness the Pope.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, yes. We are all theists.
> >
> > OK. In that case, by your definitions, atheism is a philosophy and a
> > movement. It's a pity your definitions aren't too useful, as they lead to
> > such absurd results.
> >
> > (Hint: take a poll of your fellow theists, and see how many of them agree
> > that they belong to the same philosophy and movement as the characters
> > listed above.)
>
> We're not going to do the Scotsman thing are we?
What's that to do with it? I'm not denying that, say, Stalin was an
atheist or Osama ben Laden is a theist. I _am_ saying that any system
which places me and Stalin or you and Osama ben Laden in the same
"movement" is useless as a cognitive tool.
Theism and atheism are qualities. Both I and Stalin share the quality of
atheism. Both you and Osama share the quality of theism. Whether or not we
share any _other_ qualities has nothing to do with theism or atheism. In
fact, I'd be willing to wager that you and I have more shared qualities
than you and Osama ben Laden.
> > Your non-point is hereby granted.
> > [snip large chunk of argument of same non-point]
> >
> > > > > As atheists, they are part of the atheist movement called Atheism.
> > > >
> > > > ...which has exactly which common goals, common organized activity,
> etc.?
> > >
> > > 1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of Atheism.
> >
> > ...which is "lack of belief in a god or gods?" OK, I belong to that
> > 'movement', inasmuch as I post on a.a and, lo and behold, occasionally
> > even discuss it in RL. However, lots of atheists don't.
>
> Lots of Christians don't pray to Mary. Are they no longer Christians?
Well, lots of atheists do _not_ "communicate and promulgate" the "true" or
any other definition of atheism. What was your point again?
[snip]
> > > 5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
> >
> > Ch'yeah.
>
> Are there no more atheist numbers being allocated? Will there likely be?
What problem do you have with these atheist numbers anyway? They're not
"membership numbers" or denote any kind of "secret society" or anything
like that. The system got started simply because somebody wanted to
demonstrate that there are more than a handful of atheists active on a.a.
[snip]
> > > 8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g. via:
> > > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
> >
> > Never wrote anything there. Never even looked at it.
>
> Still, someone spent quite a lot of time writing it. Some non-atheists
> (including myself) have been exposed to it by recommendation of atheists.
Well, brilliant observation! Lots of us individual atheists have views
about these and other things. This being alt.atheism, we feel free to
express them here. If some Christian wanders in here, of course they're
going to "be exposed" to it.
> > Okay, Daniel -- it seems that you've built yourself a strawman "Atheism"
> > (capital A) and ascribed all kinds of features to it. Whatever gets you
> > through the night -- but be sure to make clear when you're discussing
> > plain atheism and when "Atheism".
>
> Okay. So can we agree then that Atheism is a philosophy, a movement and that
> only atheists subscribe to Atheism.
>
> Is that right?
Absolutely correct.
It's also absolutely useless.
By your system, you have at last count about 30.000 philosophies and
movements floating around the Usenet. For example, you could say that
Bestiality is a philosophy and a movement that only zoophiliacs subscribe
to Bestiality. Silly person.
Fish
> Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1205285d9...@news.earthlink.net...
> > Daniel Pflager posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> > > Fish <fi...@infidels.org.god> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.12003e375...@news.earthlink.net...
> > > > Daniel Pflager posted the following to alt.atheism:
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, I was
> > > > > raised in a semi-hippy-social-services-liberal-arts kind of family.
> > > > > No religion, I might add.
> > > >
> > > > Fascinating.
> > > >
> > > > I'm very curious, Daniel, why, having been raised in a non-religious
> > > > environment, you chose to become religious?
> > >
> > > Aimless hedonism and conflict in my family played a part.
> >
> > How so? How did hedonism and conflict within your family help to convince
> > you god exists?
>
> I knew God existed already.
>
> The question was why did I choose to become religious.
Sorry. I equated "choosing to become religious" with "choosing to believe
that god exists" since you admit to being a theist. My mistake.
Allow me to rephrase the question:
What role did aimless hedonism and conflict within your family play in your
decision to become religious?
And since the subject has now been broached, please allow me to ask another
question of you: Prior to this decision of yours to become religious, what
line of reasoning did you employ that led you to the conclusion that god
exists?
> > > Empty
> > > pseudo-scientific nonsense being used to "justify" every kind of
> > > ignorance and abuse.
> >
> > Your use of the phrase "pseudo-scientific nonsense" tells me you did (or
> > now do) recognize the explanations offered by others as being nonsense.
> > But I still do not understand how such recognition lead you to conclude
> > god exists. Could you elaborate please?
>
> See above.
<sigh>
Fine. We'll play it your way.
As you can no doubt now see, not only am I interested in what caused you
become religious, but also what led you to conclude that god exists.
If you wish to limit this particular thread to the narrow "my reasons for
becoming religious" topic rather than also including "the reasoning I
employed leading to my conclusion that god exists" topic as well, just say
so. Until then, please understand I am interested in both topics.
What role did recognizing the explanations offered by others as being
nonsense play in your decision to become religious?
What line of reasoning did you employ that led you to the conclusion that
god exists?
> > > > And why did you choose xianity?
> > >
> > > Two loving and sane grandmothers, both of whom were Christians. Anglican
> > > high school (hardest and safest part of my childhood).
> >
> > I still don't understand your reasoning. Are you implying as I think you
> > are that you chose xianity for purely emotive reasons?
>
> Partly emotive, partly cognitive. Both sides of my brain were involved in
> the decision.
Please elaborate. What were your emotive reasons for choosing to become a
xian? What were your cognitive reasons?
> > > > I realize it's the most popular religion in this country, but why,
> > > > after looking into all the other available religions, did you choose
> > > > xianity? What was it that made you say "Yep! This is it! This is
> > > > for me! This is *the* one TRUE religion!"??
> > >
> > > It had what I knew was missing in the others. Real love.
> >
> > Ah! Then I was right. You chose to become a xian for purely emotive
> > reasons. Your reference to childhood abuse makes sense now. You were
> > abused as a child and felt unloved and xianity seemed to offer to you
> > unconditional love in exchange for unconditional belief. You didn't
> > feel as if others -- your family -- loved you whereas it seemed xians
> > did.
>
> No, the experience of real love was the clincher. The decision was much more
> involved than just emotion.
Perhaps "purely emotive reasons" was unfair of me. I apologize. I understand
you that it was more than just an emotional decision. What I'm trying to
focus on is whichever played the major role in your decision: emotion or
cognition (reasoning).
If emotion played the major role, I have to ask what reasoning you employed
that allowed you to conclude that relying so heavily on emotion in such a
decision was the smart thing to do? Does emotion normally play such a major
role in your decision-making process? Can such a method be rationally
justified in your mind? If so, I'd be interested in knowing how.
If cognition (i.e. reasoning) played the major role, however, I'd very much
like you to explain your line of reasoning that: a) led to to conclude that
xianity (i.e. "becoming religious") was a sound decision to make, and b) led
you to conclude that god exists. Would you do that for me please? Thanks.
> My parents converted to Christianity when I was 11. That was a nightmare,
> and should have resulted in my seeking something else, actually.
Nightmare? How so? Did your parents become fundamental xians? Did they
rigidly adhere to the fundamental or basic principles of xianity and force
their beliefs on you? Please elaborate. I'm quite interested in why you
identify that period of your childhood as being "a nightmare".
> > But you know, Daniel, whether or not you feel others love you -- yourself
> > included (which IMO is the most important person who should love you) --
> > has no bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness or falsity of the claim "god
> > exists." You know that, right?
>
> I take that statement as axiomatic, with one caveat.
>
> I feel God loves me.
I think it's obvious from your previous responses that you lacked being
loved when you were a child, and xianity seemed, to you, to supply that
"being loved" feeling, so I must ask you, Daniel, do you think it's possible
the "being loved" feeling you experience as a xian is the result of your
fellow xians expressing love, kindness, patience, understanding, etc,
towards you or even an increase in your own love for yourself (i.e. an
increase in self-esteem resulting from the love expressed by your fellow
xians) and not that of some supernatural infinite being? Describe the
difference in the love you feel coming from god from the love coming from
yourself and others and the means you employ to distinguish each from the
other.
> That presupposes He exists.
Yes it does. Which brings us back to the question: What reasoning did you
employ that led you to the conclusion that he exists? That is, before one
can offer as a possibility for the source of this "being loved" feeling
you're talking about as coming from an infinite supernatural being (god),
one must first accept that such a being actually exists. Thus, in order for
me to understand the context of your "feeling loved" explanations, I must
first understand what led you to conclude such a being exists in the first
place. Can you do that for me please? Can you explain what reasoning you
employed that led to your conclusion that this god critter exists? Thanks.
<snip>
> > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > Physics,
> >
> > (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> > word atheist.)
>
> Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
My "atheist number" is an *alt.atheism number* and not an atheist number. Is
is debatable, I think, whether the alt.atheism Usenet news group is a
"movement" or not, but it and the atheists that frequent it are certainly
not representative of atheism in general or others atheists overall. You're
reaching here, Daniel.
> > Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you were
> > (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism was/is
> > a religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we use to
> > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
>
> Atheism is a movement in that it has membership (even membership numbers).
Incorrect.
While there are certainly many atheist organizations in existence and while
social surveys of religious beliefs can, in a sense, roughly "number" (i.e.
count) the number of atheists there are, atheism is not in any sense any
type of organization that assigns numbers to atheists.
> Kind of like being a Libertarian or Freemason.
Nope. "Atheist" is simply a label a person attaches to themselves in order
to distinguish themselves from theists, and atheism is simply a word used to
distinguish "belief in god" from "*not* 'belief in god'." The sine qua non
of atheism is simply "not theism." It is a privative term and carries with
it no additional information beyond identifying what it isn't.
An atheist tells you what a person isn't, (a theist), but it doesn't tell
you what the person *is*. Atheists can be Libertarians or Freemasons or many
other category of people, but knowing only that a person is an atheist, all
one can confidently conclude is they are not a theist. That's it.
Now, let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? :)
> > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > Physics, but when I reached fourth year and experienced the courses
> > > in Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity, I realized that atheism gripped
> > > its adherents in
<snip distracting disagreement over what atheism is and isn't>
> > Hmmmm. Interesting. More evidence to conclude you were in fact not seeking
> > the truth but rather acceptance from others. You lacked being loved and
> > felt xianity provided you with it whereas "[the religion of] atheism" did
> > not.
>
> Oh yes. I am weak.
You need to work on your self-esteem, Daniel. :)
> I like to be loved.
As most everyone does.
But whether you are loved by others or not has no correlation with whether
or not an infinite supernatural being capable of expressing love exists,
does it?
> Call it a social habit. I really like people too. Even some atheists!
Imagine that. I too like people. Even some theists!
(Who'd a thunk it, eh? :)
But to get back on track......
> > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > Physics, but when I reached fourth year and experienced the courses
> > > in Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity, I realized that atheism gripped
> > > its adherents in a tight embrace of "objective reality" that required
> > > you to prove things like "does love exist?".
> >
> > Hmmm. The emotion of love (or rather the lack of it in your life) seems to
> > have played a major role in your having chosen to become a brain-dead
> > xian, doesn't it?
>
> Why yes, it has.
Interesting. Do you think it was wise to allow such a degree of emotionalism
to affect such a decision? I mean, from what you've told me thus far, all
you were seeking was, more or less, acceptance for who you are -- i.e. "to
be loved by others." Do you think it was wise to sacrifice your intellectual
integrity and, presumably, a love for truth in exchange for the comfort of
being loved and accepted by others? Which is more important to you? Truth?
Or being loved by others? From the sounds of it, you feel being loved by
others is more important than truth.
> I hadn't really considered the possibility that love played
> no major role in the choice of atheists. Until now.
'Tis for the most part true I suspect. I can, of course, only speak for
myself when I say that emotion played absolutely no role in my becoming an
atheist. It was entirely an intellectual decision. The conclusion that god
(or gods) did (does) not exist was reached via consideration of the evidence
and arguments for and against such a proposition. Emotion played no role.
Of course, at this time, I was already an emotionally stable adult, not
lacking in self-esteem, and thus had no emotional needs or considerations to
cloud what I felt should be a purely intellectual decision. I was seeking
truth and not love as you seem to have been.
Which, or course, explains why I'm so interested in your emotional state at
the time you made your decision and how that might have affected your
reasoning process that led you to conclude that god exists and later, to
embrace xianity.
> > > What rubbish.
> >
> > That "atheism requires its adherents to prove love exists?" Yes, I agree.
> > That *is* rubbish. :)
>
> Not what I said, was it?
It sure sounded that way to me, but let's not quibble over it.
<snip>
> > Tell me something, Daniel. Who is the most important person in your life?
>
> God.
>
> > Who, more than anyone else, should you love and who, more than anyone
> > else, should love you?
>
> God.
Other than god. :)
Assume for the moment that god doesn't exist and then answer the question.
Who is the most important person in your life? Who, more than anyone else,
should you love and who, more than anyone else, should love you?
> > > Christianity has a lot of warts, especially in the 1st World where so
> > > much effort has been expended "freeing" people from its problems, and
> > > hanging every one of their problems on it, but I found that it holds
> > > the answer.
> >
> > To what?
>
> My questions.
Which were (or are)?
> > > There are more Christians who know about real love than in the other
> > > religions I've checked out.
> >
> > I have to ask again, what does love (or being loved) have to do with
> > accepting whether or not the proposition "god exists" is true?
>
> It doesn't.
I'm very glad you understand that, Daniel. *Very* glad. We've made
remarkable progress I think. :)
Now, understanding that whether or not one is loved is immaterial to whether
or not god exists, why do you believe he does? Because you're a xian and
xianity requires one to believe such? Is that it? Are you perhaps afraid if
you admit to not believing he does that others will stop loving you?
<snip>
> Mind if I call you #623?
In a word, no, not at all. I do prefer my friends -- and I do for the time
being consider you one -- to call me "Fish", but if it make you unduly
uncomfortable to do so, feel free to call me whatever you like.
Just don't call me late for supper. :)
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Petteri Sulonen
<dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
> Christopher A. Lee <chri...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:7nn98j$9...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com...
> > In article <7nn7us$4g2$7...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, B <mcb...@erols.com>
> wrote:
> > >In article <7nm3u8$ea9$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> > >pmdla...@earthlink.net says...
[snip Santa Claus - God -demonstration]
> > The poster is either an idiot of being deliberately stupid.
>
> No, he's being quite rational. You cannot not believe in something that has
> no label or attributes.
>
> e.g. "I don't believe in X".
> "What the heck is X?"
> "I don't know, but I sure don't believe in it".
>
> Lack of X, mathematically, is the difference between the set U (of all
> possible things) and X.
>
> In terms of beliefs:
>
> Lack of belief in Z is expressable as follows:
>
> Let U be defined as the set of all beliefs.
> Let Z be defined as some particular set belief or beliefs. (implies Z is a
> subset of U).
>
> Then the lack of Z is the set difference of U and Z, usually written in one
> of the following three ways:
>
> 1. Z' Z' is also called the "compliment of
> Z".
> 2. U - Z
> 3. U \ Z
>
> We can create a new definition for this lack of belief in Z as follows:
>
> Let aZism be defined as Z'.
>
> You cannot define a compliment or difference without having at least a
> definition for Z. For example, if you don't define Z, it could be the empty
> set (no beliefs). It could be a set of any belief.
>
> Is it such a leap to deduce that if Z = 'deity', that the same logic applies
> to Z' = Atheism?
>
> His wording may have been mis-interpretable, but I think the sense of his
> argument remains.
>
> He is perhaps wondering if there are different kinds of atheists. For
> example, just as there are strong and weak atheists, perhaps there are
> atheists who lack a belief in a particular god or gods.
You're really being rather silly here, Daniel.
To re-phrase your argument back at you:
Do you, or do you not, possess a belief in Garglephrax?
If you don't have a clue what Garglephrax is, you obviously don't possess
a belief in it either. You're an a-Garglephraxist.
What's so difficult about this?
[snip]
> The above statement is evidence that some atheists might lack a belief in
> one deity particularly.
I lack belief in any deity you might care to name, particularly. Including
the ones I've never heard of.
[snippity]
You're an interesting character, Daniel. At times you're infuriatingly
obtuse and disgustingly arrogant; at others you actually modify your views
when presented a good argument -- and are always courteous. You _may_
actually be worth the trouble!
Starbuck
You are when you argue about the meaning of 'atheist' in this
fashion. If you are not an atheist, I don't accept that you have the
right to define what I am in terms I do not agree with. <<<
Oh puleezzze. Does one have to be a fish in order to define or to
understand the definition of what a fish is? One could just as well argue
that since I do believe in a "theos" therefore I am more qualifed than you
to speak to the matter. But my point is that atheists themselves admit that
the definition of the word is entirely up for grabs. I'm applying the first
step of reason to the discussion, which is to define the terms so that we
can converse meaningfully. (See Aristotle, Kant, "Thinking with Concepts",
etc.)
>>> Would you contend that apolitical people
need to find a term other than 'politic' with which to describe
themselves? The term 'atheist' is a perfectly serviceable term to
describe what I am: one who does not believe what theists believe. I
am an a-theist. <<<
Just what is an "apolitical" person? It's an oxymoron. All people are
political. The word "political" (from the Greek word "polis") means people,
for crying out loud. Again... words have meanings. The tendancy to
misdefine words for the purpose of propoganda may work well in election
cycles, but is entirely misplaced between persons interested in an honest
dialogue.
Again the prefix "a'" does not mean merely the abscence of something, it is
an active refutation of it.
>>>So, Starbuck, what do you believe?<<<
A lot of things, the world is round, I think therefore I am, God is, and I
like to discuss things. I would describe my theological views as being
pretty much mainstream orthodox Christian. Is that what you mean?
Medieval Knievel
Starbuck wrote in message <7nvmbp$4op$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>Again the prefix "a'" does not mean merely the abscence of something, it is
>an active refutation of it.
Bullshit...case in point--the difference between "aseptic" and "antiseptic."
Even you could understand such a simple example. Did you name yourself
after the Battlestar Galactica character, BTW?
--
What Would Medieval Knievel Do? (WWMKD?)
remove NOSPAM from my address to reply
ICQ# 26667824 aa# 1552 ULC ordained minister
EAC Coordinator of Youth Corruption Activities
Medieval Knievel
Starbuck wrote in message <7nvmbp$4op$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Just what is an "apolitical" person? It's an oxymoron. All people are
>political. The word "political" (from the Greek word "polis") means
people,
>for crying out loud.
Just because the root of a word has a certain meaning does not mean that all
derivatives of that word have the same meaning.
Do you need a dictionary, Bucky? I have a few spare ones around the house.
Paul Hubbard
<sfb>
>> Is it such a leap to deduce that if Z = 'deity', that the same logic
applies
>> to Z' = Atheism?
>>
>> His wording may have been mis-interpretable, but I think the sense of his
>> argument remains.
>>
>> He is perhaps wondering if there are different kinds of atheists. For
>> example, just as there are strong and weak atheists, perhaps there are
>> atheists who lack a belief in a particular god or gods.
>
>You're really being rather silly here, Daniel.
>
>To re-phrase your argument back at you:
>
>Do you, or do you not, possess a belief in Garglephrax?
>
>If you don't have a clue what Garglephrax is, you obviously don't possess
>a belief in it either. You're an a-Garglephraxist.
>
>What's so difficult about this?
Petteri,
I've been following the argument for some time and have been wondering why
Dan has been so tenacious in attempting to prove that dead men don't bleed.
But I couldn't help noticing your reply. He may be silly, but your repartee
is faulty. "Garglephrax" is a "nonsense" word. It has no semantic meaning.
You may well attach +any+ prefix or suffix to a nonsense word and it remains
a nonsense word. Dan is merely following the normal conventions of human
language - in particular - the Greek.
r,
paul
Daniel Pflager
> [sorry about this message's place in the thread, my server is acting up]
>
> <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > That atheism may be a component of another philosophy is possible,
but
> > that
> > > > doesn't invalidate the point that atheism is itself a philosophy of
at
> > least
> > > > one concept.
> > >
> > > OK. Atheism is a philosophy of one concept. Now what?
> >
> > At least one concept. Now we need to figure out whether Atheism is a
> > movement.
>
> At *most* one concept. You have said all sorts of things about "Atheism"
> which I can't argue about ("Atheism" being your own invention). Plain
> atheism, however, has at _most_ one concept. Again, now what?
Okay, let's explore that one. Your proposition is: atheism has at most one
concept.
p: atheism is the lack of a belief in deity.
This actually consists of at least three propositions:
Let U be the set of all beliefs.
Let D be the set of all beliefs in deity.
D is a subset of U
atheism (by definition) is D', or U-D.
That could be 4 propositions!
That's not Atheism. That's atheism.
> [snip]
>
> > > > > That would lump you in the same
> > > > > 'movement' as Osama ben Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Jerry
> > Falwell,
> > > > > Yasir Arafat, David ben Gurion, and His Holiness the Pope.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, yes. We are all theists.
> > >
> > > OK. In that case, by your definitions, atheism is a philosophy and a
> > > movement. It's a pity your definitions aren't too useful, as they lead
to
> > > such absurd results.
> > >
> > > (Hint: take a poll of your fellow theists, and see how many of them
agree
> > > that they belong to the same philosophy and movement as the characters
> > > listed above.)
> >
> > We're not going to do the Scotsman thing are we?
>
> What's that to do with it? I'm not denying that, say, Stalin was an
> atheist or Osama ben Laden is a theist. I _am_ saying that any system
> which places me and Stalin or you and Osama ben Laden in the same
> "movement" is useless as a cognitive tool.
As you wish.
> Theism and atheism are qualities. Both I and Stalin share the quality of
> atheism. Both you and Osama share the quality of theism. Whether or not we
> share any _other_ qualities has nothing to do with theism or atheism. In
> fact, I'd be willing to wager that you and I have more shared qualities
> than you and Osama ben Laden.
<chuckle>
> > > Your non-point is hereby granted.
> > > [snip large chunk of argument of same non-point]
> > >
> > > > > > As atheists, they are part of the atheist movement called
Atheism.
> > > > >
> > > > > ...which has exactly which common goals, common organized
activity,
> > etc.?
> > > >
> > > > 1) Communication and promulgation of the "true" definition of
Atheism.
> > >
> > > ...which is "lack of belief in a god or gods?" OK, I belong to that
> > > 'movement', inasmuch as I post on a.a and, lo and behold, occasionally
> > > even discuss it in RL. However, lots of atheists don't.
> >
> > Lots of Christians don't pray to Mary. Are they no longer Christians?
>
> Well, lots of atheists do _not_ "communicate and promulgate" the "true" or
> any other definition of atheism. What was your point again?
Those who don't communicate and promulgate are not participants in the
atheist movement.
Their participation does not influence the existence of the atheist
movement.
> [snip]
>
> > > > 5) Allocation of atheist numbers.
> > >
> > > Ch'yeah.
> >
> > Are there no more atheist numbers being allocated? Will there likely be?
>
> What problem do you have with these atheist numbers anyway? They're not
> "membership numbers" or denote any kind of "secret society" or anything
> like that. The system got started simply because somebody wanted to
> demonstrate that there are more than a handful of atheists active on a.a.
Ok. Never mind.
> [snip]
>
> > > > 8) Promulgation of Atheist ideals, philosophy and activities. (e.g.
via:
> > > > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/)
> > >
> > > Never wrote anything there. Never even looked at it.
> >
> > Still, someone spent quite a lot of time writing it. Some non-atheists
> > (including myself) have been exposed to it by recommendation of
atheists.
>
> Well, brilliant observation! Lots of us individual atheists have views
> about these and other things. This being alt.atheism, we feel free to
> express them here. If some Christian wanders in here, of course they're
> going to "be exposed" to it.
Is that site not there for purposes of supporting the atheist ideal?
> > > Okay, Daniel -- it seems that you've built yourself a strawman
"Atheism"
> > > (capital A) and ascribed all kinds of features to it. Whatever gets
you
> > > through the night -- but be sure to make clear when you're discussing
> > > plain atheism and when "Atheism".
> >
> > Okay. So can we agree then that Atheism is a philosophy, a movement and
that
> > only atheists subscribe to Atheism.
> >
> > Is that right?
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> It's also absolutely useless.
So you keep saying.
> By your system, you have at last count about 30.000 philosophies and
> movements floating around the Usenet. For example, you could say that
> Bestiality is a philosophy and a movement that only zoophiliacs subscribe
> to Bestiality. Silly person.
Not so silly.
We have now established that not only is Atheism a movement, but so is
atheism.
Even if atheism is not a movement, it is a philosophy.
So now let's take that even further.
Is it true that most atheists are unlikely to give up their conviction in
their belief?
Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist non-belief
demonstrates ardor?
Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist non-belief
demonstrates a sincerity of intentions?
Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist non-belief
represents a provable or non-provable assertion?
Mark Richardson
<pmdla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Again the prefix "a'" does not mean merely the abscence of something, it is
>an active refutation of it.
Argument by assertion.
Are your pronouncemnets infallible?
Mark.
cq...@my-deja.com
e...@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) wrote:
> In article <7nninv$bn4$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> "Starbuck" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >Frankly, based upon past conversations with self proclaimed
> >"atheists", I don't have much confidence in an atheist's ability to
> >even define their own beliefs, let alone comprehend them. Most
> >atheists seem to define their values and beliefs in the context of a
> >belief in god, even if it is an ill directed attempt to negate such a
> >belief.
>
> >Even the title "atheist" has at it's root "theos", the Greek word for
> >god.
>
> >If atheism is such an independant way of thinking, then why can't it
> >at least come up with a descriptive name for itself that excludes
> >"god"?
>
> Because, idiot, atheists do not describe themselves in terms
> of God at all-- they describe themselves in terms of believers. To
be
> frank, Starbuck, it is *you* who is the target of atheism, you and
> every other theist. We think you're insane for beleiving in your
> mysterious sky pixie for which there is not a shred of proof, a scrap
> of evidence, or a reason for consideration.
>
> want me to accept it, it must come with solid evidence and a rational
do
> with the fairy tale-- it has everything to do with whether or not I
> should believe you, or a book, or a tradition, regardless of how old
> or how popular.
>
>
> --
> 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/
This link -- http://www.reasons.org -- might weaken some of your
defence to your atheistic view of the universe, thou I wouldn't count
on any miraculous 180 degree change of stand. Give your atheistic
reasonings some challenge!
However, i suppose many atheist would say "let me see God, then I shall
believe". If u happens to be one who have made this "challenge", and
insists upon its logic, then theists cannot bother u anymore. We would
find your standpoint unshakeable, and we often refer to your kind
(thou, as i said, u might not be of this kind) of human being extremely
intelligent.
Petteri Sulonen
<dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
Okay. Now what?
[snip]
> > Well, lots of atheists do _not_ "communicate and promulgate" the "true" or
> > any other definition of atheism. What was your point again?
>
> Those who don't communicate and promulgate are not participants in the
> atheist movement.
>
> Their participation does not influence the existence of the atheist
> movement.
Okay, so you're still playing around with this "atheist movement" of
yours. You seem to have modified your definition. Aren't you placing
yourself and Osama in the same "theist movement" anymore?
Of course I'm not denying the existence of "atheist movements" (American
Atheists for one; Finnish Society of Freethinkers for another). I _was_
objecting to your (perceived) way of bunching _all_ atheists and _all_
such movements together into one Atheist Movement. This is fallacious.
[snip]
> > Well, brilliant observation! Lots of us individual atheists have views
> > about these and other things. This being alt.atheism, we feel free to
> > express them here. If some Christian wanders in here, of course they're
> > going to "be exposed" to it.
>
> Is that site not there for purposes of supporting the atheist ideal?
No idea. Maybe you should ask someone who contributed to it. What is "the
atheist ideal" anyway?
[snip]
> > Absolutely correct.
> >
> > It's also absolutely useless.
>
> So you keep saying.
>
> > By your system, you have at last count about 30.000 philosophies and
> > movements floating around the Usenet. For example, you could say that
> > Bestiality is a philosophy and a movement that only zoophiliacs subscribe
> > to Bestiality. Silly person.
>
> Not so silly.
>
> We have now established that not only is Atheism a movement, but so is
> atheism.
No, we haven't. [sigh]
We've established that atheism is a quality possessed by lots of different
people. Some of them are active in various kinds of movements. Some of
these movements also possess the quality of "atheism" (for example,
Bolshevism and American Atheists). These people are _not_ active in one,
unifying "atheist movement" any more than you and Osama are active in one,
unifying "theist movement".
> Even if atheism is not a movement, it is a philosophy.
>
> So now let's take that even further.
>
> Is it true that most atheists are unlikely to give up their conviction in
> their belief?
This is a loaded question. You're still hanging all sorts of assumed
subsidiary qualities to the quality of "atheism".
> Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist non-belief
> demonstrates ardor?
I'd say that the someone is pretty confused if that's *all* he's steadfast
in. Please, understand this: atheism is one (1) quality. Marxism, critical
rationalism, and libertarianism are philosophies. Marxists, critical
rationalists, or libertarians may or may not be also atheists. They may be
more or less steadfast in their beliefs. These beliefs they may or may not
share with other atheists.
You.
Can't.
Generalize.
Not based on the simple quality of "atheism" at least, any more than I can
generalize about the simple quality of "theism".
> Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist non-belief
> demonstrates a sincerity of intentions?
See above.
> Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist non-belief
> represents a provable or non-provable assertion?
Uh... what? Please clarify this bit. I don't understand you here at all.
What assertion is supposedly provable or non-provable?
Petteri Sulonen
<PaulHu...@email.msn.com> wrote:
I forgot to add the following line in my post:
"Assume that 'Garglephrax' is a deity unknown to you."
Elf Sternberg
>This link -- http://www.reasons.org
Oh, please. The anthropic principle couched in the most
psuedoscientific gobbledygook I've seen in a long time, which is
completely irrelevant and even contradictatory to Christianity. Using
the anthropic principle on one hand to claim the universe is designed
and then tearing down the exact same principles of science that support
the anthropic principle because they also indicate an old Earth and old
universe is bad science in the extreme.
>However, i suppose many atheist would say "let me see God, then I shall
>believe". If u happens to be one who have made this "challenge", and
>insists upon its logic, then theists cannot bother u anymore.
Good. Please? We're talking about some kind of all-powerful
being here, right? If he exists, there should be no question of his
ability to reveal himself to me. In the meantime, what you and every
other godsoaked moron tell me about your favorite space pixie is mere
hearsay and I have no reason at all to believe it.
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
Elroy Willis
>I forgot to add the following line in my post:
>"Assume that 'Garglephrax' is a deity unknown to you."
Isn't that the bumbling sorcerer in the smurf cartoons?
--
Elroy Willis
BAAWA (Undercover News Division)
http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news
Paul Hubbard
<sfb>
> > >You're really being rather silly here, Daniel.
> > >
> > >To re-phrase your argument back at you:
> > >
> > >Do you, or do you not, possess a belief in Garglephrax?
> > >
> > >If you don't have a clue what Garglephrax is, you obviously don't
possess
> > >a belief in it either. You're an a-Garglephraxist.
> > >
> > >What's so difficult about this?
> >
> >
> > Petteri,
> >
> > I've been following the argument for some time and have been wondering
why
> > Dan has been so tenacious in attempting to prove that dead men don't
bleed.
> > But I couldn't help noticing your reply. He may be silly, but your
repartee
> > is faulty. "Garglephrax" is a "nonsense" word. It has no semantic
meaning.
> > You may well attach +any+ prefix or suffix to a nonsense word and it
remains
> > a nonsense word. Dan is merely following the normal conventions of human
> > language - in particular - the Greek.
>
> I forgot to add the following line in my post:
>
> "Assume that 'Garglephrax' is a deity unknown to you."
>
> -- Petteri
Ok. One more addition for me too. Early Xtians were labeled atheists because
they refused to acknolege the Roman and Greek pantheon of Gods (etc.)
r,
paul
Daniel Pflager
That my parents were educated, that they were career social scientists
(mother a psychologist and father a social worker), had no relationship to
their sense of morality. Their actions were often designed to satisfy their
short-term needs for self-gratification.
This led me to the conclusion that morality is not a natural consequence of
education or social service.
I'm not sure what led me to be morally sensitive as a child, but I later
came to appreciate that there was no secular avenue for the development of
morality available to me. As an older child, I came to appreciate the
possibility of religion being able to provide moral guidance.
However, my parents seemed to come to the same conclusion about that time,
and decided to join a Bapto-fundamentalist church. That quickly turned me
off that kind of religion, as those people were as messed up as the
hedonists.
One of my grandmothers left me enough money to attend a private high school
of the British Public School type. There I was exposed to Anglicanism - With
my parents still dragging me off to the Baptists on the weekends.
To make a long story short, I sought answers in the hard sciences, and found
proof positive there would be none, and after trying several alternatives, I
returned to Anglicanism - albeit American-style.
> And since the subject has now been broached, please allow me to ask
another
> question of you: Prior to this decision of yours to become religious, what
> line of reasoning did you employ that led you to the conclusion that god
> exists?
I always knew God existed. Now you might find that strange, considering that
I came from a secular-humanist, essentially atheistic, background.
I was brought up on an ocean beach. In the winter, when the winter storms
blew, I would go out in boots and jacket and play on the logs as they were
being tossed about by the crashing waves. I always felt God's presence and
power in the sea, in the logs, in the howling wind. I always felt a part of
Him and vice versa. I always felt God was my father (my birth father died
when I was 2 or 3).
Only much later did I find out how dangerous my play actually was. I never
suffered so much as a scratch, though.
In university, I realized that science could neither prove nor disprove God,
so I saw no reason to throw out my personal view. In fact, as I completed
4th year relativity, and quantum mechanics courses, I felt certain that the
limitations of physical science and philosophy left plenty of room for God
to express himself without the necessity of us having any physical proof of
it.
> > > > Empty
> > > > pseudo-scientific nonsense being used to "justify" every kind of
> > > > ignorance and abuse.
> > >
> > > Your use of the phrase "pseudo-scientific nonsense" tells me you did
(or
> > > now do) recognize the explanations offered by others as being
nonsense.
> > > But I still do not understand how such recognition lead you to
conclude
> > > god exists. Could you elaborate please?
> >
> > See above.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Fine. We'll play it your way.
>
> As you can no doubt now see, not only am I interested in what caused you
> become religious, but also what led you to conclude that god exists.
>
> If you wish to limit this particular thread to the narrow "my reasons for
> becoming religious" topic rather than also including "the reasoning I
> employed leading to my conclusion that god exists" topic as well, just say
> so. Until then, please understand I am interested in both topics.
>
> What role did recognizing the explanations offered by others as being
> nonsense play in your decision to become religious?
It led me to conclude that education and "science" had no morality. For
morality, I would have to go elsewhere.
> What line of reasoning did you employ that led you to the conclusion that
> god exists?
I always knew he existed. I didn't conclude that he existed, he just is.
> > > > > And why did you choose xianity?
> > > >
> > > > Two loving and sane grandmothers, both of whom were Christians.
Anglican
> > > > high school (hardest and safest part of my childhood).
> > >
> > > I still don't understand your reasoning. Are you implying as I think
you
> > > are that you chose xianity for purely emotive reasons?
> >
> > Partly emotive, partly cognitive. Both sides of my brain were involved
in
> > the decision.
>
> Please elaborate. What were your emotive reasons for choosing to become a
> xian? What were your cognitive reasons?
Not an exhaustive list:
Emotive:
Enjoyment of experience of loving persons.
Enjoyment of experience of Holy Spirit.
Enjoyment of music (active and passive).
Enjoyment of community.
Overcoming fear of public speaking/performance.
Enjoyment of friendships.
Cognitive:
Moral code.
Inherent self-discipline.
Service of others.
Personal growth - stretching.
Extended family supports.
Appropriate peer group for children.
> > > > > I realize it's the most popular religion in this country, but why,
> > > > > after looking into all the other available religions, did you
choose
> > > > > xianity? What was it that made you say "Yep! This is it! This is
> > > > > for me! This is *the* one TRUE religion!"??
> > > >
> > > > It had what I knew was missing in the others. Real love.
> > >
> > > Ah! Then I was right. You chose to become a xian for purely emotive
> > > reasons. Your reference to childhood abuse makes sense now. You were
> > > abused as a child and felt unloved and xianity seemed to offer to you
> > > unconditional love in exchange for unconditional belief. You didn't
> > > feel as if others -- your family -- loved you whereas it seemed xians
> > > did.
> >
> > No, the experience of real love was the clincher. The decision was much
more
> > involved than just emotion.
>
> Perhaps "purely emotive reasons" was unfair of me. I apologize. I
understand
> you that it was more than just an emotional decision. What I'm trying to
> focus on is whichever played the major role in your decision: emotion or
> cognition (reasoning).
Both played an important role. I can't tell you which was greater. I can
tell you the decision involved both sides of my brain. That is important,
because I concentrated heavily on educating myself in left-brain science.
> If emotion played the major role, I have to ask what reasoning you
employed
> that allowed you to conclude that relying so heavily on emotion in such a
> decision was the smart thing to do?
Even if it wasn't the major role, the pure scientist would want to know why
I relied on it at all. I can tell you that it involved a stretch. I was
going well outside my comfort zone in making the decision. I knew that it
was good for me for that purpose alone.
> Does emotion normally play such a major
> role in your decision-making process?
It depends what it is. If it's the selection of a present or momento for my
wife or children, emotion plays an important part. If it's musical
composition, emotion plays an important part. If it's deciding which mutual
fund to use, it's hardly emotional at all.
> Can such a method be rationally
> justified in your mind? If so, I'd be interested in knowing how.
I don't think it's smart to just toss half your brain away every time you
make a decision. Many of the decisions we make day to day don't require any
thought. They're just habit.
Some things are better left to the intuitive brain. Others are better left
to the linear brain.
A decision such as what church (or religion for that matter) requires both.
You're using your senses and your intuitive mind, but you're also thinking
linearly. You're calculating your way through it, AND you're feeling your
way through it. Sometimes, step-by-step thinking is too slow. Intuition can
be filtered from momentary moods. It represents a different and
complimentary type of thinking, IMHO.
Different kinds of decisions are suited to different approaches. For
example, you wouldn't want to use a step-by-step linear rational approach to
selecting colors for your wife's new decorating project or to communicate
through musical, you'd want to feel your way.
Ever reacted with logic to emotion? If you're married, you'll know how that
doesn't work.
For composing, for example, I try to intensely feel the emotion I want to
convey, and then kind of let my hands take over. As I'm playing, I'm
listening to verify if I hear the emotion I'm trying to convey. When I hear
it, I keep the theme.
> If cognition (i.e. reasoning) played the major role, however, I'd very
much
> like you to explain your line of reasoning that: a) led to to conclude
that
> xianity (i.e. "becoming religious") was a sound decision to make, and b)
led
> you to conclude that god exists. Would you do that for me please? Thanks.
Greatest cognitive driver was need for moral instruction and associations.
Never spent much energy analyzing whether God exists or not. No reason so.
> > My parents converted to Christianity when I was 11. That was a
nightmare,
> > and should have resulted in my seeking something else, actually.
>
> Nightmare? How so? Did your parents become fundamental xians?
They did. Their lives were spinning out of control. They went to the
opposite extreme.
Fundamentalism is not a good answer, although it did help them for a time.
> Did they
> rigidly adhere to the fundamental or basic principles of xianity and force
> their beliefs on you?
Yes. I could not listen to or play the music I loved. I could not express
myself in clothing or art. They would make me attend prayer meetings at home
where they'd pray that I'd shape up in whatever department they figured I
needed it.
There was a big control issue going on too between my mother and father. She
wanting to be the moral leader of the family. Used religion to do that.
Didn't work for her.
> Please elaborate. I'm quite interested in why you
> identify that period of your childhood as being "a nightmare".
That period was not a nightmare, but their conversion was a nightmare. So
much hypocrisy, so much oppression.
> > > But you know, Daniel, whether or not you feel others love you --
yourself
> > > included (which IMO is the most important person who should love
you) --
> > > has no bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness or falsity of the claim
"god
> > > exists." You know that, right?
> >
> > I take that statement as axiomatic, with one caveat.
> >
> > I feel God loves me.
>
> I think it's obvious from your previous responses that you lacked being
> loved when you were a child, and xianity seemed, to you, to supply that
> "being loved" feeling, so I must ask you, Daniel, do you think it's
possible
> the "being loved" feeling you experience as a xian is the result of your
> fellow xians expressing love, kindness, patience, understanding, etc,
> towards you or even an increase in your own love for yourself (i.e. an
> increase in self-esteem resulting from the love expressed by your fellow
> xians) and not that of some supernatural infinite being?
When I'm alone in the outdoors, especially by the raging sea, I feel God's
love. But God is a spirit, and my humanity requires the love and company of
other human beings. I have not felt that at every church I've been to. Quite
the contrary. Most of the ones we tried, I did not feel it.
I believe 100% that I supply part of the "being loved" feeling as a response
to expressions of love from my fellow Christians.
> Describe the
> difference in the love you feel coming from god from the love coming from
> yourself and others and the means you employ to distinguish each from the
> other.
I experience the love I feel coming from God whenever I bring Him into my
conscious awareness, but especially when I am surrounded and protected by
the power of his raging creation. That love is pure goodness.
The feeling that I get from other Christians is centered around individuals,
and of course you take the good with the bad.
> > That presupposes He exists.
>
> Yes it does. Which brings us back to the question: What reasoning did you
> employ that led you to the conclusion that he exists? That is, before one
> can offer as a possibility for the source of this "being loved" feeling
> you're talking about as coming from an infinite supernatural being (god),
> one must first accept that such a being actually exists. Thus, in order
for
> me to understand the context of your "feeling loved" explanations, I must
> first understand what led you to conclude such a being exists in the first
> place. Can you do that for me please?
I'm sorry I can't describe what process I went through to decide He existed.
> Can you explain what reasoning you
> employed that led to your conclusion that this god critter exists? Thanks.
I really cannot remember a time when I didn't think He did exist.
> <snip>
>
> > > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > > Physics,
> > >
> > > (FYI: it's "atheist" not "Atheist". It's improper to capitalize the
> > > word atheist.)
> >
> > Not if you wear an atheist number. Then it becomes a movement.
>
> My "atheist number" is an *alt.atheism number* and not an atheist number.
Is
> is debatable, I think, whether the alt.atheism Usenet news group is a
> "movement" or not, but it and the atheists that frequent it are certainly
> not representative of atheism in general or others atheists overall.
You're
> reaching here, Daniel.
Yes.
> > > Your capitalization of the term leads me to believe it's possible you
were
> > > (or possibly still are) laboring under the impression that atheism
was/is
> > > a religion. You know that it's not, don't you? It's simply a label we
use to
> > > distinguish ourselves from the misguided fools who believe god exists.
> >
> > Atheism is a movement in that it has membership (even membership
numbers).
>
> Incorrect.
>
> While there are certainly many atheist organizations in existence and
while
> social surveys of religious beliefs can, in a sense, roughly "number"
(i.e.
> count) the number of atheists there are, atheism is not in any sense any
> type of organization that assigns numbers to atheists.
Okay, then atheism is not a movement.
> > Kind of like being a Libertarian or Freemason.
>
> Nope. "Atheist" is simply a label a person attaches to themselves in order
> to distinguish themselves from theists, and atheism is simply a word used
to
> distinguish "belief in god" from "*not* 'belief in god'." The sine qua non
> of atheism is simply "not theism." It is a privative term and carries with
> it no additional information beyond identifying what it isn't.
Yes.
> An atheist tells you what a person isn't, (a theist), but it doesn't tell
> you what the person *is*. Atheists can be Libertarians or Freemasons or
many
> other category of people, but knowing only that a person is an atheist,
all
> one can confidently conclude is they are not a theist. That's it.
Understood.
> Now, let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? :)
>
> > > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > > Physics, but when I reached fourth year and experienced the courses
> > > > in Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity, I realized that atheism
gripped
> > > > its adherents in
>
> <snip distracting disagreement over what atheism is and isn't>
>
> > > Hmmmm. Interesting. More evidence to conclude you were in fact not
seeking
> > > the truth but rather acceptance from others. You lacked being loved
and
> > > felt xianity provided you with it whereas "[the religion of] atheism"
did
> > > not.
> >
> > Oh yes. I am weak.
>
> You need to work on your self-esteem, Daniel. :)
Not at all. I am a frail human being, and well aware of my strengths and
weaknesses. I do not think it is a deficit in my self-esteem to know
realistically what I am. I don't need to be an arrogant, pompous or
overbearing to feel confident.
I'm not a toady either. I've simply reached an age where I can confidently
acknowledge my individual frailty and my limited strengths.
In fact, I wonder if someone who needs God not to exist may have a
self-esteem problem.
> > I like to be loved.
>
> As most everyone does.
>
> But whether you are loved by others or not has no correlation with whether
> or not an infinite supernatural being capable of expressing love exists,
> does it?
Being loved by others is only indirect evidence of God's love. I accept it
as evidence, all the same.
> > Call it a social habit. I really like people too. Even some atheists!
>
> Imagine that. I too like people. Even some theists!
>
> (Who'd a thunk it, eh? :)
>
> But to get back on track......
>
> > > > I considered become an Atheist during university as I was studying
> > > > Physics, but when I reached fourth year and experienced the courses
> > > > in Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity, I realized that atheism
gripped
> > > > its adherents in a tight embrace of "objective reality" that
required
> > > > you to prove things like "does love exist?".
> > >
> > > Hmmm. The emotion of love (or rather the lack of it in your life)
seems to
> > > have played a major role in your having chosen to become a brain-dead
> > > xian, doesn't it?
> >
> > Why yes, it has.
>
> Interesting. Do you think it was wise to allow such a degree of
emotionalism
> to affect such a decision?
Yes. Human beings have emotions. Emotion helps drive creativity, passion and
even altruism. Emotion is useful and powerful.
Denying emotions doesn't make them go away, but it can force them to express
themselves negatively. Ulcers, etc.
> I mean, from what you've told me thus far, all
> you were seeking was, more or less, acceptance for who you are -- i.e. "to
> be loved by others." Do you think it was wise to sacrifice your
intellectual
> integrity and, presumably, a love for truth in exchange for the comfort of
> being loved and accepted by others?
I have not sacrificed truth. Even if God did exist, all I have done is to
include a non-existent deity in the equation - kind of like including a
denominator of 1 in an equation. Doesn't effect the equation, just the look
of it.
> Which is more important to you? Truth?
> Or being loved by others? From the sounds of it, you feel being loved by
> others is more important than truth.
I don't believe I'll ever know Truth, so I guess I believe that love is more
important. Love of God and love of other Christians, and of course family.
> > I hadn't really considered the possibility that love played
> > no major role in the choice of atheists. Until now.
>
> 'Tis for the most part true I suspect. I can, of course, only speak for
> myself when I say that emotion played absolutely no role in my becoming an
> atheist. It was entirely an intellectual decision. The conclusion that god
> (or gods) did (does) not exist was reached via consideration of the
evidence
> and arguments for and against such a proposition. Emotion played no role.
So what were the arguments?
> Of course, at this time, I was already an emotionally stable adult, not
> lacking in self-esteem, and thus had no emotional needs or considerations
to
> cloud what I felt should be a purely intellectual decision. I was seeking
> truth and not love as you seem to have been.
Interesting. So what motivated you to seek truth?
> Which, or course, explains why I'm so interested in your emotional state
at
> the time you made your decision and how that might have affected your
> reasoning process that led you to conclude that god exists and later, to
> embrace xianity.
I'm curious what might have driven you to become an atheist also.
> > > > What rubbish.
> > >
> > > That "atheism requires its adherents to prove love exists?" Yes, I
agree.
> > > That *is* rubbish. :)
> >
> > Not what I said, was it?
>
> It sure sounded that way to me, but let's not quibble over it.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Tell me something, Daniel. Who is the most important person in your
life?
> >
> > God.
> >
> > > Who, more than anyone else, should you love and who, more than anyone
> > > else, should love you?
> >
> > God.
>
> Other than god. :)
Immediate family. Close friends. Extended family. Church family. In that
order, I guess.
> Assume for the moment that god doesn't exist and then answer the question.
> Who is the most important person in your life?
My wife.
> Who, more than anyone else,
> should you love and who, more than anyone else, should love you?
I should love her most, and I guess she me.
> > > > Christianity has a lot of warts, especially in the 1st World where
so
> > > > much effort has been expended "freeing" people from its problems,
and
> > > > hanging every one of their problems on it, but I found that it holds
> > > > the answer.
> > >
> > > To what?
> >
> > My questions.
>
> Which were (or are)?
How do I live a moral life, for example.
> > > > There are more Christians who know about real love than in the other
> > > > religions I've checked out.
> > >
> > > I have to ask again, what does love (or being loved) have to do with
> > > accepting whether or not the proposition "god exists" is true?
> >
> > It doesn't.
>
> I'm very glad you understand that, Daniel. *Very* glad. We've made
> remarkable progress I think. :)
As you wish.
> Now, understanding that whether or not one is loved is immaterial to
whether
> or not god exists, why do you believe he does?
I've no logical reason to doubt my belief. I've strong emotional reasons to
believe he does, and lots of benefits from association with Christians - for
myself and my family.
I, and those around me, experience (emotional) happiness and joy in the
knowledge that He exists and loves me.
I, and those around me, experience (emotional) happiness and solidarity when
with others who feel the same way.
> Because you're a xian and
> xianity requires one to believe such? Is that it?
I went for Christianity, not the other way round.
> Are you perhaps afraid if
> you admit to not believing he does that others will stop loving you?
I have no reason to admit that, since I do believe.
> > Mind if I call you #623?
>
> In a word, no, not at all. I do prefer my friends -- and I do for the time
> being consider you one -- to call me "Fish", but if it make you unduly
> uncomfortable to do so, feel free to call me whatever you like.
>
> Just don't call me late for supper. :)
Whew. That was a long one.
Tukla Ratte
wrote:
> Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi (Petteri Sulonen) wrote:
>
> >I forgot to add the following line in my post:
>
> >"Assume that 'Garglephrax' is a deity unknown to you."
>
> Isn't that the bumbling sorcerer in the smurf cartoons?
Close. Gargamel.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Director, EAC Animoid Shocktroop Division
Defender of the Honor of She Who Leads the EAC
atheist #1347, Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
BAAWA Knight, Calico Angora Rat, Clothing Aficionado
Furry Peace! http://www.fur.com/peace
Petteri Sulonen
Ratte) wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 22:28:23 GMT, e...@cyberramp.net (Elroy Willis)
> wrote:
>
> > Petteri...@helsinki.DIE.SPAM.DIE.fi (Petteri Sulonen) wrote:
> >
> > >I forgot to add the following line in my post:
> >
> > >"Assume that 'Garglephrax' is a deity unknown to you."
> >
> > Isn't that the bumbling sorcerer in the smurf cartoons?
>
> Close. Gargamel.
>
Whew. I was worried for a minute there. For all I know, I could've
insulted a Hare Krishna without knowing!
Petteri Sulonen
<paulhu...@msn.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Ok. One more addition for me too. Early Xtians were labeled atheists because
> they refused to acknolege the Roman and Greek pantheon of Gods (etc.)
As was Socrates. This, however, is not the modern definition of atheism --
Hindus, for example, are rarely called "atheists" although they do not
acknowledge Yahweh (or the Trinity, or whatnot). So?
Petteri Sulonen
<dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip Daniel's account of his personal religious history]
(butting in)
I must say that these are the kinds of things that make a.a worth reading.
Thanks for a very touching post, Daniel; I think that I understand you
better now. You're still a bit confused about the "intellectual-emotive"
bit, though... but definitely "worth the trouble". ;-)
All the best,
-- Petteri
PS. I'm also glad you dropped your "atheism is a movement" stance.
Daniel Pflager
Okay then, atheism is a philosophy.
> > > Well, lots of atheists do _not_ "communicate and promulgate" the
"true" or
> > > any other definition of atheism. What was your point again?
> >
> > Those who don't communicate and promulgate are not participants in the
> > atheist movement.
> >
> > Their participation does not influence the existence of the atheist
> > movement.
>
> Okay, so you're still playing around with this "atheist movement" of
> yours. You seem to have modified your definition.
No. I'm attempting to explore the following proposition:
It is not necessary to have all individuals subscribers to a philosophy
engaged in the same organized activities to ascribe the label "movement" to
it.
For examples, some Christians are evangelists, others are musicians, others
are prophets. All these activities define Christianity as a movement.
Conversely, just because not all Christians are prophets doesn't mean that
Christianity is not a movement.
> Aren't you placing
> yourself and Osama in the same "theist movement" anymore?
No. I'm still there.
> Of course I'm not denying the existence of "atheist movements" (American
> Atheists for one; Finnish Society of Freethinkers for another). I _was_
> objecting to your (perceived) way of bunching _all_ atheists and _all_
> such movements together into one Atheist Movement. This is fallacious.
Let's explore how that works as far as Christians are concerned.
> > > Well, brilliant observation! Lots of us individual atheists have views
> > > about these and other things. This being alt.atheism, we feel free to
> > > express them here. If some Christian wanders in here, of course
they're
> > > going to "be exposed" to it.
> >
> > Is that site not there for purposes of supporting the atheist ideal?
>
> No idea. Maybe you should ask someone who contributed to it. What is "the
> atheist ideal" anyway?
The atheist philosophy then.
> [snip]
>
> > > Absolutely correct.
> > >
> > > It's also absolutely useless.
> >
> > So you keep saying.
> >
> > > By your system, you have at last count about 30.000 philosophies and
> > > movements floating around the Usenet. For example, you could say that
> > > Bestiality is a philosophy and a movement that only zoophiliacs
subscribe
> > > to Bestiality. Silly person.
> >
> > Not so silly.
> >
> > We have now established that not only is Atheism a movement, but so is
> > atheism.
>
> No, we haven't. [sigh]
Okay. Let's shelf the previous argument in favour of the one above.
> We've established that atheism is a quality possessed by lots of different
> people. Some of them are active in various kinds of movements. Some of
> these movements also possess the quality of "atheism" (for example,
> Bolshevism and American Atheists). These people are _not_ active in one,
> unifying "atheist movement" any more than you and Osama are active in one,
> unifying "theist movement".
>
> > Even if atheism is not a movement, it is a philosophy.
> >
> > So now let's take that even further.
> >
> > Is it true that most atheists are unlikely to give up their conviction
in
> > their belief?
>
> This is a loaded question. You're still hanging all sorts of assumed
> subsidiary qualities to the quality of "atheism".
Well, okay. I hereby pronounce that the only quality of atheism is that its
adherents lack a belief in deity.
> > Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist
non-belief
> > demonstrates ardor?
>
> I'd say that the someone is pretty confused if that's *all* he's steadfast
> in. Please, understand this: atheism is one (1) quality. Marxism, critical
> rationalism, and libertarianism are philosophies. Marxists, critical
> rationalists, or libertarians may or may not be also atheists. They may be
> more or less steadfast in their beliefs. These beliefs they may or may not
> share with other atheists.
Ok. Sure. If that's all he believes in, he's got a problem.
Are the things that a person believes in other than atheism are what makes a
person an ardent atheist?
Would the ardor the person has for some things that the person believes
apart from atheism what makes a person an ardent atheist?
What makes a person an ardent atheist?
Are most atheists ardent?
Starbuck
all
derivatives of that word have the same meaning.<<<
Well, that's a valid point.
However, I'm not in favor of redefining words simply to support my
arguments, or to confuse and baffle. I prefer to use words that are
descriptive and meaningful in ordert to clarify and communicate meaning to
the persons with whom I am having a discussion.
Starbuck
is
>an active refutation of it.
Bullshit...case in point--the difference between "aseptic" and "antiseptic."
Even you could understand such a simple example. Did you name yourself
after the Battlestar Galactica character, BTW?<<<
Try not to confuse a Greek prefix with a Latin one.
No, Starbuck is a family name...Nantucket whalers.
Elf Sternberg
"Starbuck" <pmdla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>Again the prefix "a'" does not mean merely the abscence of something, it
>>>is an active refutation of it.
>>Bullshit...case in point--the difference between "aseptic" and "antiseptic."
>>Even you could understand such a simple example. Did you name yourself
>>after the Battlestar Galactica character, BTW?
>Try not to confuse a Greek prefix with a Latin one.
Oh, come on, Starbuck, why can't you just be gracious and
admit that you're wrong about this one? Atheism is in opposition to
theism and atheists oppose theists, not /theos/.
Elf
--
Petteri Sulonen
Pflager" <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
[snip conversation that's pretty much reached a dead end of "yes it is" --
"no it isn't"]
> Okay. Let's shelf the previous argument in favour of the one above.
Let's indeed.
> > We've established that atheism is a quality possessed by lots of different
> > people. Some of them are active in various kinds of movements. Some of
> > these movements also possess the quality of "atheism" (for example,
> > Bolshevism and American Atheists). These people are _not_ active in one,
> > unifying "atheist movement" any more than you and Osama are active in one,
> > unifying "theist movement".
> >
> > > Even if atheism is not a movement, it is a philosophy.
> > >
> > > So now let's take that even further.
> > >
> > > Is it true that most atheists are unlikely to give up their conviction
> in
> > > their belief?
> >
> > This is a loaded question. You're still hanging all sorts of assumed
> > subsidiary qualities to the quality of "atheism".
>
> Well, okay. I hereby pronounce that the only quality of atheism is that its
> adherents lack a belief in deity.
Bravo. Now we can talk.
> > > Would you say that someone who is steadfast in his or her atheist
> non-belief
> > > demonstrates ardor?
> >
> > I'd say that the someone is pretty confused if that's *all* he's steadfast
> > in. Please, understand this: atheism is one (1) quality. Marxism, critical
> > rationalism, and libertarianism are philosophies. Marxists, critical
> > rationalists, or libertarians may or may not be also atheists. They may be
> > more or less steadfast in their beliefs. These beliefs they may or may not
> > share with other atheists.
>
> Ok. Sure. If that's all he believes in, he's got a problem.
>
> Are the things that a person believes in other than atheism are what makes a
> person an ardent atheist?
Bingo.
The Bolsheviks, for example, were ardent atheists, because, apart from
being atheists, they believed that religion is a tool used by the ruling
classes to suppress the class-consciousness of the labouring classes,
thereby keeping them in chains and holding Revolution at bay.
It wasn't their atheism per se, it was their view of society and Man.
> Would the ardor the person has for some things that the person believes
> apart from atheism what makes a person an ardent atheist?
Bingo again.
> What makes a person an ardent atheist?
The belief that theism _per se_ is pernicious and should be fought.
Alternatively, a social context where he is forced religious practices
against his will, or shunned because of his atheism. I was pretty ardent,
for example, when they tried to get me to attend a religious service in
the Army -- even though this was strictly and explicitly illegal. (I won
that particular little battle.)
> Are most atheists ardent?
I don't know. Probably not.
I for one am only "ardent" when I am under attack. I have no wish to wipe
religion off the face of the earth, and do not think the worse of people
for holding theistic beliefs. Most of the atheists I _know_ are like this.
The vocal, "ardent atheists" out on a "crusade against superstition" are
visible, but I think that they're a minority.
[sigsnip]
Starbuck
admit that you're wrong about this one? Atheism is in opposition to
theism and atheists oppose theists, not /theos/. <<<
Be gracious? Like I said... Nantucket whalers. <G>
My point was the "anti-" prefix is the latin form of the greek "ano" for
which "a' " is a contraction. Both anti- and ano- mean "against".
Now whether Atheism is against theism or against theos is another issue, and
one in which I am inclined to graciously (man, this is hard) offer you the
benefit of the point.
Fish
> In article <t58p3.21921$x7.9...@newscene.newscene.com>, "Daniel Pflager"
> <dpf...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> [snip Daniel's account of his personal religious history]
>
> (butting in)
>
> I must say that these are the kinds of things that make a.a worth reading.
> Thanks for a very touching post, Daniel; I think that I understand you
> better now. You're still a bit confused about the "intellectual-emotive"
> bit, though... but definitely "worth the trouble". ;-)
>
> All the best,
>
> -- Petteri
Thanks, Petteri. I too enjoy these types of exchanges and feel such are more
in tune with what this news group was meant to be used for.
Up until now most of the "exchange" between us has been in one direction: me
probing him to understand where he's coming from. That's about to change.
It looks like I'm going to get the opportunity to share with him where *I'm*
coming from. The information exchange is heading into the bidirectional
state, which is good. He's been kind enough to share his background with me
and I'd like to reciprocate by sharing mine with him.
A "meeting of minds" is a cool thing and I look forward to it happening.
> PS. I'm also glad you dropped your "atheism is a movement" stance.
Me too. It shows he's open and willing to new understanding. Kudos to
Daniel.
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"When a clear head leads the way,
a warm heart can safely follow."
-- Marilyn Vos Savant
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Fish
<snip>
> Whew. That was a long one.
>
> Obedientia et Pax,
>
> Daniel Pflager
Yes, it sure was, wasn't it? And on that note, I would like to say *because*
our posts have grown so large it's going to take me a while before I can
post my reciprocal reply, so patience please to all those waiting. Thanks.
(at the moment it looks like I'll probably break my reply down into two
separate posts under the subject "Daniel Pflager opens up and Fish begins to
too". Look for it wihin the next few days. Thanks again for your patience.)
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced,
believe not because it is your national belief, believe not
because you have been made to believe from your childhood,
but reason truth out, and after you have analyzed it, then
if you find it will do good to one and all, believe it,
live up to it and help others to live up to it." -- Buddha
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*