Selling Points of the Major Religions
Jerry Kraus
"We offer a personal relationship with God."
2. Islam:
"There is no God but Allah, the all-powerful, the all-merciful, whom
we all worship."
3. Judaism:
"We are God's Chosen People."
4. Hinduism:
"There are many paths to truth, but some are more direct than others."
5. Buddhism:
"We can transform life's suffering to the peace of Nirvana."
6. Confucianism:
"Family and tradition are the basis of a good life, and we are all
children of the Emperor."
7. Atheism:
"All religion is superstition, we must seek truth through scientific
humanism."
DanielSan
> 1. Christianity:
>
> "We offer a personal relationship with God."
>
> 2. Islam:
>
> "There is no God but Allah, the all-powerful, the all-merciful, whom
> we all worship."
>
> 3. Judaism:
>
> "We are God's Chosen People."
>
> 4. Hinduism:
>
> "There are many paths to truth, but some are more direct than others."
>
> 5. Buddhism:
>
> "We can transform life's suffering to the peace of Nirvana."
>
> 6. Confucianism:
>
> "Family and tradition are the basis of a good life, and we are all
> children of the Emperor."
>
> 7. Atheism:
is not a religion.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for *
* a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord *
* doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked *
* Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips *
****************************************************
Free Lunch
The first six were somewhere in the ballpark of correct. The last one is
quite misleading.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm afraid it is, Mr. Atheist. None of the above think they're
religions. Not one.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
Free Lunch
Show us how it fits a definition of religion.
Free Lunch
The lack of belief in gods.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Confucianism is Atheistic but is classified as a religion. Buddhism
is, arguably, atheistic as well, although somewhat more ambiguously.
It is certainly not theistic in emphasis or in practice.
Free Lunch
There are some superstitious elements to Confucianism and Buddhism that
would generally be rejected by those who consider themselves to be
atheists, but there are also atheists at Universalist or Unitarian
services, as well.
Jerry Kraus
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's clarify what exactly you mean by "superstition". This term
seems to be regularly used by the so-called "atheists" in the U.S.,
who I am really referring to here. Frankly, I haven't the slightest
idea what these so-called "atheists" mean by "superstition", but they
claim that they reject all "superstition".
Tokay Pino Gris
Lack of believe in gods.
Tokay
--
Truth will be out this morning. (Which may really mess
things up.)
Tokay Pino Gris
Define "religion". Compare to the definition given in encyclopedias. (If
it works out, next step. If it doesn't, think about your definition)
Whichever you want. Look up definition of "atheism". Compare the two.
Any more questions?
Tokay Pino Gris
Quite right.
Buddhism
> is, arguably, atheistic as well,
I think there are multiple sorts of buddhism, but some are atheistic, yes.
although somewhat more ambiguously.
> It is certainly not theistic in emphasis or in practice.
>
Theism <> Religion
That wasn't so hard, wasn't it?
Theism is belief in gods, or god, or a deity, whatever supernatural
entity you like.
Atheism is lack of such.
Religion is something else entirely. There are atheistic religions,
there are theistic religions.
Your point was?
Christopher A. Lee
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > 7. Atheism:
>>
>> is not a religion.
[snip DanielSAn's.sig]
>I'm afraid it is, Mr. Atheist. None of the above think they're
>religions. Not one.
You know it's not, deliberately nasty liar.
Because you know that not believing in any deity, is no different than
not playing chess.
After all, you've been told tios too many tiomes for it to be an
honest "mistake" on your part.
Is that a religion as well in your drug-addled fantasies?
Free Lunch
Claims about the supernatural which are unsupported by any evidence. It
includes belief in gods, spirit ancestors, souls, etc.
beelzebub
> > 7. Atheism:
>
> is not a religion.
Oh, I disagree. You believe. You get a number. It's a cult.
beelzebub
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> >Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
>
> The lack of belief in gods.
The belief that there is no god, actually.
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2008, Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1. Christianity:
>
> "We offer a personal relationship with God."
>
> 2. Islam:
>
> "There is no God but Allah, the all-powerful, the all-merciful, whom
> we all worship."
>
> 3. Judaism:
>
> "We are God's Chosen People."
You are, of course, completely wrong.
In fact, a number of the things you have applied to other religions
can/should be applied to Judaism.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 11-May-2008, Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid it is, Mr. Atheist. None of the above think they're
> religions. Not one.
You're a total idiot because not only is atheism *not* a religion
(religions being ***deity centered***) all the religions you mentioned
8do* say they are - with the possible exception of Busshism, which
says it's a philosophy (&, havng no central deity, I have to bow to their
own definition).
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
Wreong.
#3 is completely wrong.
Susan
DanielSan
What?
Richard Corfield
They don't seem to be really the selling points. The selling points
would be why each religion should be the one you choose - and has to
cater nowadays to people not being willing to just believe unless they
were born into the religion. Religions are having to sell to people who
can see so many different ones on offer and can compare them and don't
know why they should believe in, say, Jehova as opposed to Brahman.
How would each religion actually _sell_ itself to those in the market?
On 2008-05-11, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
><jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>1. Christianity:
>>
>>"We offer a personal relationship with God."
Christians have seemed to try a number of sells (as well as that one)
We offer free salvation - just believe and you'll be saved.
Now not any other religion can give you that can it Sir? Look at
those Buddhists for example - believing everything is suffering? And
those Hindus going round and round and having to _work_ for their
salvation. With us it's all for free if you wish to accept it.
(The CMOT Dibbler approach - Pray for one, get one free, on a
stick! Hope Source available at no extra cost)
And failing that
We are the _best_ view. Just look at how Christ was. Surely that's the
most complete.
(The used car salesman approach - Shiny bodywork on that one! Just
look at the chrome plating!)
There are sales practices I question. Christians tend to have both
the inclination and resource to try to sell. Wealthy, well resourced,
Christians coming into a deprived area can do well in that market selling
on the back of good works. Also, as anything, it's not actually free
and results are not guaranteed.
>>2. Islam:
>>
I know little about Islam. Muslims I know and have met haven't pushed
their religion, though I think I'd be welcome to discuss if I asked with
sincerity. Of the Abrahamics I'd be better sticking to Christianity.
I can guess from what I've seen that Islam works very well. There's
strong belonging, strong community, strong devotion. Claims from many that
they were/are ahead in many ways. At the moment maybe more appealing to
people wanting structure and tradition? Pity about the odd rogue salesman
out there.
>>4. Hinduism:
>>
>>"There are many paths to truth, but some are more direct than others."
"We don't believe in selling. Many of us believe you can't even 'buy'
it." (Continuing the sales metaphor), Normally a peaceful lot. True
inner peace?
"Just follow the path. We're easy going. You'll find it in time
and when you do it will be great! Can't go wrong - even if you don't
make it this time you'll reincarnate somewhere better next time"
Or if life was like a video game
"As many extra lives as you need"
(I nearly said "As many extra balls" - too much pinball in my youth!
Multiball would be - amusing, and probably just as hard to control)
One I heard
"We're an eco-friendly religion, seeing the whole world we live in
as divine" - backed up to some extent by an explanation of a Shiavite
puja in which the things honoured included the world for supporting
our lives.
There's also yoga, and a good singsong around the fire.
>>5. Buddhism:
>>
>>"We can transform life's suffering to the peace of Nirvana."
Some forms sell well to atheists or agnostics - "Religious structure
without needing all this belief stuff". Otherwise I think as you've
described.
"Can apply the teachings on top of whatever you are now - no need to
convert, but we believe you'll see that it works as you get into it."
One I did hear
"People who've tried Buddhism have reported that friends say they're
a lot more at peace now and asked how it's done."
"When you realise impermanence it actually frees you up and you value
what life you have so much more"
>>7. Atheism:
>>
>>"All religion is superstition, we must seek truth through scientific
>>humanism."
>
> The first six were somewhere in the ballpark of correct. The last one is
> quite misleading.
So if you were a salesman in your booth at the "Which?(tm) God" trade
show, how would you pitch it? Can you pitch it without attacking the
opposition? Something I learned when I worked for a big well known
company is that knocking the competition generally doesn't win customers
who trust you.
Some deconversion stories I've heard have been on the lines of
"Suddenly I can see the richness of the world as it is, without the
extra layer of religion on top"
and
"Suddenly I'm a lot more at ease"
"Suddenly I don't have to worry about all those bits of scripture that
I used to worry about not making sense."
and sadly
"I found all my friendships were conditional, but at least I can make
_real_ friends now".
I think some people do enter the religion marketplace looking for
structure and an alternative to the Rat Race. A sales pitch I've heard
from at least three religions started on the lines of
"So material success isn't satisfactory then?"
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at gmail dot com
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
DanielSan
> On May 11, 2:42 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 7. Atheism:
>> is not a religion.
>
> Oh, I disagree.
And I don't care.
> You believe.
I don't.
> You get a number.
That I requested.
> It's a cult.
Who's the cult leader? Where do they meet?
DanielSan
The lack of belief in gods, actually.
Kate
who the heck told you that?
wrong again.
Kate
Not believing in a deity.
Tokay Pino Gris
Both, in fact. That's the difference between so called "strong" and
"weak" atheism.
What combines them is the LACK of belief in gods.
Andy W
Riiiiiiight.
Atheism is religion.
And cold is heat.
And silence is noise.
And dark is light.
And health is illness.
And you are intelligent.
Andy
Daniel Kolle
It does not matter what adherents think. Define religion.
--
Daniel "Mister Brevity" Kolle
A.A. #2035
Free Lunch
No.
Uncle Vic
> I'm afraid it is, Mr. Atheist. None of the above think they're
> religions. Not one.
I'm afraid you should have avoided the brown acid, you're not making any
sense.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
HHW
fla...@verizon.net
This is what I told him I had heard, yes.
Susan
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Confucians and
Atheists have all told me that they don't consider their religion to
be a religion. Christians call it a "relationship" and say they hate
religion, Muslims say it's just a belief in a universal order to
things, Jews say they're just trying to understand things, Buddhists
say it's a way of life, Hindus say any approach that works is fine
with them, Atheists say they oppose all religion, Confucians say they
just want to get along in society. No one who belongs to any of the
major religions acknowledge that they do in fact belong to a religion.
Interesting, no?
Jerry Kraus
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
> >Let's clarify what exactly you mean by "superstition". This term
> >seems to be regularly used by the so-called "atheists" in the U.S.,
> >who I am really referring to here. Frankly, I haven't the slightest
> >idea what these so-called "atheists" mean by "superstition", but they
> >claim that they reject all "superstition".
>
> Claims about the supernatural which are unsupported by any evidence. It
> includes belief in gods, spirit ancestors, souls, etc.- Hide quoted text -
What is "supernatural"? What is real? How do we tell the
difference? How CAN we tell the difference without making certain
assumptions which can be questioned?
Do so-called "atheists" simply object to vagueness? Certainly, the
concept of "God" in monotheism is extremely vague, probably
undefinable. On the other hand, the Gods of Hinduism are much more
tangible -- largely representations of aspects of life, in the
conventional polytheistic sense. The Gods of Hinduism seem to simply
represent various real aspects of life in symbolic form.
What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in? Anything?
If they do believe in something, why exactly do they believe in it?
What "evidence" do you use? Why? How can you tell if the evidence
for your beliefs is real, or adequate for you to believe in it?
Pink Freud
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:825f3983-b267-4710...@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
As lies go, no, not really.
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-May-2008, Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Confucians and
> Atheists have all told me that they don't consider their religion to
> be a religion.
Yeah, get one or 2 oddballs (that can't be verified) & that makes it true.
The fact that you know nothing about Judaism (for starters) makes
this claim suspect as well.
Susan
Kenny McCormack
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>Well, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Confucians and
>Atheists have all told me that they don't consider their religion to
>be a religion. Christians call it a "relationship" and say they hate
>religion, Muslims say it's just a belief in a universal order to
>things, Jews say they're just trying to understand things, Buddhists
>say it's a way of life, Hindus say any approach that works is fine
>with them, Atheists say they oppose all religion, Confucians say they
>just want to get along in society. No one who belongs to any of the
>major religions acknowledge that they do in fact belong to a religion.
Then do they all click the box marked "None" on their census forms?
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> > >I'm afraid it is, Mr. Atheist. None of the above think they're
> > >religions. Not one.
>
and
>
> Well, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Confucians and
> Atheists have all told me that they don't consider their religion to
> be a religion. Christians call it a "relationship" and say they hate
> religion, Muslims say it's just a belief in a universal order to
> things, Jews say they're just trying to understand things, Buddhists
> say it's a way of life, Hindus say any approach that works is fine
> with them, Atheists say they oppose all religion, Confucians say they
> just want to get along in society. No one who belongs to any of the
> major religions acknowledge that they do in fact belong to a religion.
>
> Interesting, no?
My god, this is the most brilliantly intuitive definition I have ever
read. If something doesn't think it is a religion then it IS a
religion.
Pardon me, I have to go venerate a peach cobbler.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in?
In their capacity as atheists, nothing, though in their other human
capacities they might believe in an infinite number of different
things. Simple, really, even you should be able to grasp it.
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
I must be honest. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by this.
"In their capacity as atheists, atheists believe in nothing, but in
their other human capacities they might believe in an infinite number
of different things."
Say what?
So, how exactly do atheists differ from non-atheists, if they can
believe the same things?
Jerry Kraus
Frankly, Susan what I'm describing are the most common views expressed
to me by members of these various religions. There are exceptions,
but what I am describing is the rule, not the exception. If a
Christian tries to convert you he will say:
"Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship."
If a Muslim tries to convert you, he will say:
"Do you believe in God? Then you're a Muslim!"
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> On May 12, 11:48 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 7:26 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in?
>
> > In their capacity as atheists, nothing, though in their other human
> > capacities they might believe in an infinite number of different
> > things. Simple, really, even you should be able to grasp it.
>
> I must be honest. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by this.
>
> "In their capacity as atheists, atheists believe in nothing, but in
> their other human capacities they might believe in an infinite number
> of different things."
>
> Say what?
>
Don't worry, I was prepared to be patient. Though I stated it simply
and straightforwardly, I'll restate it below.
> So, how exactly do atheists differ from non-atheists, if they can
> believe the same things?
An atheist is someone who does not believe one particular
proposition. There are an infinite number of other propositions that
an atheist might conceivably believe. Got it?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I presume you mean, my friend, that Atheists simply don't believe in
God/Gods. The problem here, is that the God of Monotheism is
undefined and undefinable. And the Gods of polytheism simply
represent symbolically various accepted aspects of the real world
around us. So what, exactly, do Atheists not believe in? The
undefinable? Do atheists think everything in life is clearly defined?
Hatter
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
What a bald faced lie. Every one of them(except atheism) claims to be
a religion. They are especially keen on being perceived as one when I
show up at their door as a tax agent.
Hatter
Hatter
> On May 11, 4:15 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:10:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> > <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On May 11, 4:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> > >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On May 11, 3:44 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:28:53 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> > >> >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >1. Christianity:
>
> > >> >> >"We offer a personal relationship with God."
>
> > >> >> >2. Islam:
>
> > >> >> >"There is no God but Allah, the all-powerful, the all-merciful, whom
> > >> >> >we all worship."
>
> > >> >> >3. Judaism:
>
> > >> >> >"We are God's Chosen People."
>
> > >> >> >4. Hinduism:
>
> > >> >> >"There are many paths to truth, but some are more direct than others."
>
> > >> >> >5. Buddhism:
>
> > >> >> >"We can transform life's suffering to the peace of Nirvana."
>
> > >> >> >6. Confucianism:
>
> > >> >> >"Family and tradition are the basis of a good life, and we are all
> > >> >> >children of the Emperor."
>
> > >> >> >7. Atheism:
>
> > >> >> >humanism."
>
> > >> >> The first six were somewhere in the ballpark of correct. The last one is
>
> > >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >is, arguably, atheistic as well, although somewhat more ambiguously.
> > >It is certainly not theistic in emphasis or in practice.
>
> > There are some superstitious elements to Confucianism and Buddhism that
> > would generally be rejected by those who consider themselves to be
> > atheists, but there are also atheists at Universalist or Unitarian
> > services, as well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> seems to be regularly used by the so-called "atheists" in the U.S.,
> who I am really referring to here. Frankly, I haven't the slightest
> idea what these so-called "atheists" mean by "superstition", but they
>
Actually no, I've met superstitous atheists. Atheism just means
"without god belief" I've never heard Confucianism called religous and
Buddhism is kind of in a grey area because it is technically atheistic
yet icorporates the mystic elements common to various religions, and
is compatable with several of them.
Hatter
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Undoubtedly. But, I wouldn't might claiming cult status myself under
those circumstances.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
Illogical. God is the widely accepted proper name of a particular
ancient tribal deity.
> And the Gods of polytheism simply
> represent symbolically various accepted aspects of the real world
> around us. So what, exactly, do Atheists not believe in?
What you just said (except for your little digression about
definability). Atheists do not believe in those objects.
> The
> undefinable? Do atheists think everything in life is clearly defined?
Nonsensical questions.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Undoubtedly. But, I wouldn't mind claiming cult status myself under
those circumstances.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, is your position that Atheists simply do not believe in the "God"
of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, specifically?
Hatter
> On May 11, 5:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> > >Let's clarify what exactly you mean by "superstition". This term
> > >seems to be regularly used by the so-called "atheists" in the U.S.,
> > >who I am really referring to here. Frankly, I haven't the slightest
> > >idea what these so-called "atheists" mean by "superstition", but they
> > >claim that they reject all "superstition".
>
> > Claims about the supernatural which are unsupported by any evidence. It
> > includes belief in gods, spirit ancestors, souls, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
> What is "supernatural"? What is real? How do we tell the
> difference? How CAN we tell the difference without making certain
> assumptions which can be questioned?
How can we tell the difference. Science and logic. No, we cannot tell
the difference without certain assumptions. Those include: (1)Science
and (2)Logic
>
> Do so-called "atheists" simply object to vagueness? Certainly, the
> concept of "God" in monotheism is extremely vague, probably
> undefinable.
Most adherents of montheism have attributes of their Deity. The
Abrahamic God is tri-omni, which is a logical paradox and at odds with
the observable universe....so it can be easily discounted as false.
The fact is, that they move around the goalposts to work the "cannot
prove a negative" angle for some vauge deitist type god, which is
possible, then use equivocation to then say the disprovability of this
vauge concept means there particular deity exists. It is such a common
tactic it is called "moving the goalposts" and not a month has gone by
since I've started reading alt.atheism that some theist tries this
tactic. It is also combined with someone who is obviously abrahamic,
probably Christian, but will state he makes no postive claim. I
wouldn't have to go far to find someone using this tactic, not far at
all.
>
> What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in? Anything?
> If they do believe in something, why exactly do they believe in it?
> What "evidence" do you use? Why? How can you tell if the evidence
> for your beliefs is real, or adequate for you to believe in it?
Atheists as a class, don't need to have a particular belief. No more
people whom do not engage in model railroading have a particular
hobby.
But I can tell you what I believe in: People make crap up. One should
look at fantastic claims with suspicion.
Hatter
Jerry Kraus
>
Depends a lot on who you talk to. Most intelligent monotheists say
that their concept of God is undefinable. And, therefore, the
existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.
Curiously, Kurt Godel, the famous mathematician and logician -- you
know, the uncertainty and undefinability theorems?-- actually did
write a proof of the existence of God. He defined God as the
coexistence of all possible states of being. Most intelligent
religious people, however, would say that their concept of God
transcends all logic. Purely undefinable. Possibly, by definition.
beelzebub
> beelzebub wrote:
> > On May 11, 2:42 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 7. Atheism:
> >> is not a religion.
>
>
> And I don't care.
>
Yet you felt compelled to share your brilliance and insight on the
subject. Not the act of someone who doesn't care.
>
> > You believe.
>
> I don't.
You believe that a god or gods don't exist. That is your belief. Do
you deny it?
>
> > You get a number.
>
> That I requested.
>
Why would you do that if you didn't believe? If you didn't wish to
"belong"?
>
> > It's a cult.
>
> Who's the cult leader?
AA #1?
> Where do they meet?
Here.
beelzebub
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> >> The lack of belief in gods.
>
[beelzebub corrected the semantic argument]
> > The belief that there is no god, actually.
>
> The lack of belief in gods, actually.
>
1. Do you believe in God?
2. Do you believe that there is a god, or gods?
Answer both, without skirting the issue.
Jerry Kraus
You must define God. Otherwise, how can the question be accurately
answered?
Santolina chamaecyparissus
Or any others. It must be said, though, that some will use the term
in the sense of, "I am an atheist in regards to god X." As far as
I've ever seen, however, all the regulars on a.a use it in the former
sense.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, personally, I believe in the Undefinable as an inevitable aspect
of existence. Mysteries and structures to existence that have no end,
and that our understanding can only attempt to grasp, without ever
fully succeeding. To me, this concept is somewhat consistent with
certain interpretations of monotheism, in a broad sense. And it could
be attached to the word "God". It's just a word, after all. We can
define it any way we wish.
beelzebub
Define it however you choose (upper or lowercase). It is immaterial
to the question--when posed to an atheist. The question is posed to
atheists.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, you're saying Atheists just don't like the word "God"? They don't
care what it means? Just remove that word from the dictionaries, and
Atheists will be happy?
Doesn't sound like much of a philosophy!
beelzebub
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
> <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 11, 3:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> >> >Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
>
> >> The lack of belief in gods.
>
>
So you believe in a god or gods?
Jerry Kraus
How do you define God? If you don't, how can the question be
accurately answered?
beelzebub
I'm not saying anything of the sort. It is a simple question, posed
to an atheist. Why do you feel the need to co-opt it for your own
idiotic purposes? (Asked and answered.)
>
> Doesn't sound like much of a philosophy!
You don't sound like much of a philosopher.
beelzebub
I spell it "STFU, you twat." Stop hijacking the conversation.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds like "atheists" are reduced to word games and nay-saying when
they're asked simple questions. Sounds like they really don't know
what, if anything, they stand for. Sounds like they have no coherent
philosophy of much of anything. Sounds like their appreciation of
philosophy is about at the same level as the Creationist's
appreciation of science -- sniping, without presenting any real
alternatives.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are atheists all morons?
Hatter
We've already had the discussion "god" means differing thing to
differing people. We are tired of equivocation games therefore when we
are under the belief that someone will play such game asked them to
define the word "god" so such goalpost moving isn't possible.
> Sounds like they really don't know
> what, if anything, they stand for.
Other than the fact that we don't believe in the class of mythic being
"god" nothing. Individual may vary.
Sounds like they have no coherent
> philosophy of much of anything.
"I don't believe you" is pretty coherent.
Sounds like their appreciation of
> philosophy is about at the same level as the Creationist's
> appreciation of science -- sniping, without presenting any real
> alternatives.
If you were amongst a group of people whom believed in unicorns,
quoted books on unicorns, killed people because of what they think
unicorns might want, propsed unicorns controlled the universe, and
stated they have a relationship with these unseen unicorns: What
alternative would you propose as needed?
Hatter
duke
>Jerry Kraus wrote:
>> 1. Christianity:
>>
>> "We offer a personal relationship with God."
>>
>> 2. Islam:
>>
>> "There is no God but Allah, the all-powerful, the all-merciful, whom
>> we all worship."
>>
>> 3. Judaism:
>>
>> "We are God's Chosen People."
>>
>> 4. Hinduism:
>>
>> "There are many paths to truth, but some are more direct than others."
>>
>> 5. Buddhism:
>>
>> "We can transform life's suffering to the peace of Nirvana."
>>
>> 6. Confucianism:
>>
>> "Family and tradition are the basis of a good life, and we are all
>> children of the Emperor."
>>
>> 7. Atheism:
>
>is not a religion.
Sure it is - you follow satan's teachings, tkh.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Hatter
None the less, ask your average theist on the street: they will say
they are a member of a religion, and/or that their religion is
important to them
Hatter
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fair enough. So atheists do NOT have a coherent philosophy, and admit
it. They simply see conventional religions as being a kind of evil
that must be fought by whatever means are available. They know who
their enemy is, but they don't have any other philosophical positions
to speak of.
The problem is, in the absence of all conventional religion, or even
any meaningful philosophical positions, what do Atheists believe in?
"Science" apparently. Or, their conception of it, anyway. But, the
scientific method is hardly adequate to deal with all morality and
social organization. Or, even with fundamentally new ideas in
conventional science, which are derived intuitively -- no real rules
to getting new ideas, you know. Atheism sounds like a recipe for
total stagnation intellectually.
Jerry Kraus
Actually, most people who are "religious" don't like the term
"religion". It puts their views on the same level as that of those of
other religions. They simply describe themselves as "knowing the
truth". They see themselves as simply believing in "the truth". If
the question is put strictly enough, they may admit to being
"religious", but that isn't how they see themselves.
Hatter
As soon as you are not a deist, however they can say God is
undefinable all they want to: Their beliefs actually say otherwise.
Hatter
Pink Freud
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89448487-761d-4e05...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Out of interest, how do you "derive something intuitively"?
Why do you think a "derivation" is the same as an "idea"?
Also, what makes you think you have the right to post in an atheist
newsgroup and tell them whether or not they are a religion?
Why do you think you will get away with such ridiculous statements as that
Christians, Muslims, Jews etc do not consider themselves religious?
Why do you think it makes sense to base your opinions on athiests in general
based on the response you get when you troll an atheist newsgroup?
Why do you find it so hard to understand the definition of atheism?
Why do you find it so hard to understand the definition of the word "god"?
What exactly do you find wrong with the idea that science can have a hand in
deciding morality? Pain and suffering can certainly be defined in scientific
terms.
Ditto the above for social organisation.
Why do you assume atheists necessarily have no philosophical position?
Why do you expect such an obvious attempt at trolling to be treated with
anything other than "sniping"?
Why are you so arrogant?
Why are you even here?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, the Satanist Bible is kind of cool. You should look it up
sometime. Quite reasonable, and no more violent than most of the
Bible.
Jerry Kraus
I've seen Atheists who detest Deists. Christopher Lee -- he's rather
big in the Atheist Google group -- hates Deists' guts.
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why are atheists such total morons? Is it because they're simply
afraid of uncertainty and speculative thinking?
Yes, I think that might be it.
Kind of like the religious fundamentalists they ridicule.
Hatter
>
that is completely alien to my experience and, frankly, the definition
of religion.
Hatter
Pink Freud
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63cb9270-41d9-400a...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Why didn't you answer a single question I asked?
Hatter
>
I like and converse a great deal with Mr Lee, but that is one of the
points we do have significantly differing viewpoints on.
Hatter
beelzebub
I don't know, but I do know of one hammer (a theist), who doesn't
understand that threads contain individual discussions that aren't all
directed to the attention of the OP. Can you believe that someone
could be that stupid? He just keeps hijacking the discussion with the
same asinine question. Pretty funny, huh?
--
Ad Hominem fallacy, an appeal to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason, often used to distract attention from an argument's shortcomings.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are not asking questions. You are asking rhetorical questions.
In other words, you are spouting rhetoric.
As I have indicated. Atheism appears to have no philosophical
content. Just hostility to conventional religion of all types.
Without providing any alternative means of formulating morality,
inspiration or creativity.
Hatter
That is not what I said
They simply see conventional religions as being a kind of evil
> that must be fought by whatever means are available.
That is not what I said
They know who
> their enemy is, but they don't have any other philosophical positions
> to speak of.
>
That is not what I said, but close
.
> The problem is, in the absence of all conventional religion, or even
> any meaningful philosophical positions, what do Atheists believe in?
> "Science" apparently. Or, their conception of it, anyway. But, the
> scientific method is hardly adequate to deal with all morality and
> social organization. Or, even with fundamentally new ideas in
> conventional science, which are derived intuitively -- no real rules
> to getting new ideas, you know. Atheism sounds like a recipe for
> total stagnation intellectually.- Hide quoted text -
>
What part of the unicorn analogy didn't you get? It isn't stagnation
to whittle out what is is inheirently absurd. Atheism isn't the end
all of wisdom...it is just cleaving away folly. Religion claims to be
the end all of wisdom, but just is a crock of crap.
Only by removing the unreal can we ever hope to address the real.
Seriously, when trying to address social policy, isn't removing bronze
age faries tales (where people regularly tortured people and slavery
is valued) from being a source for wisdom, much less THE source of
wisdom, a GOOD IDEA?
Let's use trails and justice as an example. When people stopped using
strange methodologies about torturing confession and beating out
demons, or oddities of whether or not one would sink or swim, didn't
we arrive at a more just form of Judicial system? An abandoning of
superstition was needed BEFORE the whole thing, and society could
progess to what could easily be argued as morally superior.
Hatter
Pink Freud
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a9d9d1b6-01a5-49f4...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
And you're dodging my questions... none of which were rhetorical.
If you don't know the answers, just admit it. That's one thing you'll find
atheists generally have no problem with.
> As I have indicated. Atheism appears to have no philosophical
> content. Just hostility to conventional religion of all types.
Ah... so atheism isn't *conventional* religion, now is it? Then what type of
"religion" is it? or is that a rhetorical question too?
> Without providing any alternative means of formulating morality,
> inspiration or creativity.
>
An opinion you present with zero evidence. And little evident intelligence.
Or did you "derive it intuitively?"
The above *was* a rhetorical question. You don't have to answer that one.
Free Lunch
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 5:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> >Let's clarify what exactly you mean by "superstition". This term
>> >seems to be regularly used by the so-called "atheists" in the U.S.,
>> >who I am really referring to here. Frankly, I haven't the slightest
>> >idea what these so-called "atheists" mean by "superstition", but they
>> >claim that they reject all "superstition".
>>
>> Claims about the supernatural which are unsupported by any evidence. It
>> includes belief in gods, spirit ancestors, souls, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>What is "supernatural"? What is real? How do we tell the
>difference? How CAN we tell the difference without making certain
>assumptions which can be questioned?
All real things actually have evidence that they exist. So far, every
single claim for the supernatural is completely unsupported by any
evidence. Stories of the supernatural are entertaining and often
fun-scary, but there are no ghosts, no goblins, no ghouls, no gods.
>Do so-called "atheists" simply object to vagueness? Certainly, the
>concept of "God" in monotheism is extremely vague, probably
>undefinable. On the other hand, the Gods of Hinduism are much more
>tangible -- largely representations of aspects of life, in the
>conventional polytheistic sense. The Gods of Hinduism seem to simply
>represent various real aspects of life in symbolic form.
So, are you arguing that all gods are representational, that they are
nothing but early attempts to make sense of natural processes?
>What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in? Anything?
Most are pretty well committed to reality and refuse to let people tell
them religious stories that are contrary to reality. Still, why do they
have to believe in anything. Why not just let them accept reality and
ignore stories of the supernatural?
>If they do believe in something, why exactly do they believe in it?
>What "evidence" do you use? Why? How can you tell if the evidence
>for your beliefs is real, or adequate for you to believe in it?
I don't have religious beliefs. How hard is that for you to comprehend?
I accept the discoveries about nature that have been made. I accept what
scientists have learned and what society has developed, but I don't
accept religious claims about gods because there is no reason to.
Free Lunch
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 11:48 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>> On May 12, 7:26 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in?
>>
>> In their capacity as atheists, nothing, though in their other human
>> capacities they might believe in an infinite number of different
>> things. Simple, really, even you should be able to grasp it.
>
>I must be honest. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by this.
>
>"In their capacity as atheists, atheists believe in nothing, but in
>their other human capacities they might believe in an infinite number
>of different things."
>
>Say what?
>
>So, how exactly do atheists differ from non-atheists, if they can
>believe the same things?
They do not believe in gods.
Free Lunch
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 1:41 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>> On May 12, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 12, 11:48 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 12, 7:26 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in?
>>
>> > > In their capacity as atheists, nothing, though in their other human
>> > > capacities they might believe in an infinite number of different
>> > > things. Simple, really, even you should be able to grasp it.
>>
>> > I must be honest. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by this.
>>
>> > "In their capacity as atheists, atheists believe in nothing, but in
>> > their other human capacities they might believe in an infinite number
>> > of different things."
>>
>> > Say what?
>>
>> Don't worry, I was prepared to be patient. Though I stated it simply
>> and straightforwardly, I'll restate it below.
>>
>> > So, how exactly do atheists differ from non-atheists, if they can
>> > believe the same things?
>>
>> An atheist is someone who does not believe one particular
>> proposition. There are an infinite number of other propositions that
>> an atheist might conceivably believe. Got it?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I presume you mean, my friend, that Atheists simply don't believe in
>God/Gods. The problem here, is that the God of Monotheism is
>undefined and undefinable.
So you say. Since there is no evidence about any such god, your point is
meaningless.
>And the Gods of polytheism simply
>represent symbolically various accepted aspects of the real world
>around us.
So you say. Apparently you are not a Hindu.
>So what, exactly, do Atheists not believe in? The
>undefinable? Do atheists think everything in life is clearly defined?
Life exists. Gods do not.
Free Lunch
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 2:49 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>> On May 12, 12:20 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 12, 2:14 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Illogical. God is the widely accepted proper name of a particular
>> > > ancient tribal deity.
>>
>> > > > And the Gods of polytheism simply
>> > > > represent symbolically various accepted aspects of the real world
>> > > > around us. So what, exactly, do Atheists not believe in?
>>
>> > > What you just said (except for your little digression about
>> > > definability). Atheists do not believe in those objects.
>>
>> > > > The
>> > > > undefinable? Do atheists think everything in life is clearly defined?
>>
>> > > Nonsensical questions.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > So, is your position that Atheists simply do not believe in the "God"
>> > of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, specifically?
>>
>> Or any others. It must be said, though, that some will use the term
>> in the sense of, "I am an atheist in regards to god X." As far as
>> I've ever seen, however, all the regulars on a.a use it in the former
>> sense.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Well, personally, I believe in the Undefinable as an inevitable aspect
>of existence.
Mystical nonsense like that is normally rejected by atheists.
> Mysteries and structures to existence that have no end,
>and that our understanding can only attempt to grasp, without ever
>fully succeeding. To me, this concept is somewhat consistent with
>certain interpretations of monotheism, in a broad sense. And it could
>be attached to the word "God". It's just a word, after all. We can
>define it any way we wish.
You will be happy to know that atheists reject your god, too.
Free Lunch
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 2:27 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 12, 10:26 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 11, 5:20 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>> > > >Let's clarify what exactly you mean by "superstition". This term
>> > > >seems to be regularly used by the so-called "atheists" in the U.S.,
>> > > >who I am really referring to here. Frankly, I haven't the slightest
>> > > >idea what these so-called "atheists" mean by "superstition", but they
>> > > >claim that they reject all "superstition".
>>
>> > > Claims about the supernatural which are unsupported by any evidence. It
>> > > includes belief in gods, spirit ancestors, souls, etc.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > What is "supernatural"? What is real? How do we tell the
>> > difference? How CAN we tell the difference without making certain
>> > assumptions which can be questioned?
>>
>> How can we tell the difference. Science and logic. No, we cannot tell
>> the difference without certain assumptions. Those include: (1)Science
>> and (2)Logic
>>
>>
>>
>> > Do so-called "atheists" simply object to vagueness? Certainly, the
>> > concept of "God" in monotheism is extremely vague, probably
>> > undefinable.
>>
>> Most adherents of montheism have attributes of their Deity. The
>> Abrahamic God is tri-omni, which is a logical paradox and at odds with
>> the observable universe....so it can be easily discounted as false.
>> The fact is, that they move around the goalposts to work the "cannot
>> prove a negative" angle for some vauge deitist type god, which is
>> possible, then use equivocation to then say the disprovability of this
>> vauge concept means there particular deity exists. It is such a common
>> tactic it is called "moving the goalposts" and not a month has gone by
>> since I've started reading alt.atheism that some theist tries this
>> tactic. It is also combined with someone who is obviously abrahamic,
>> probably Christian, but will state he makes no postive claim. I
>> wouldn't have to go far to find someone using this tactic, not far at
>> all.
>>
>>
>>
>> > What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in? Anything?
>> > If they do believe in something, why exactly do they believe in it?
>> > What "evidence" do you use? Why? How can you tell if the evidence
>> > for your beliefs is real, or adequate for you to believe in it?
>>
>> Atheists as a class, don't need to have a particular belief. No more
>> people whom do not engage in model railroading have a particular
>> hobby.
>>
>> But I can tell you what I believe in: People make crap up. One should
>> look at fantastic claims with suspicion.
>>
>> Hatter- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Depends a lot on who you talk to. Most intelligent monotheists say
>that their concept of God is undefinable.
It is not clear to me if you are aware that this is a way to duck the
question. The writers of the Old Testament clearly made an effort to
define God. The New Testament writers were a bit more mixed, but they
didn't duck the same way modern believers do. Of course they either knew
they were making it up or they had no idea how foolish they were back
then. The moderns want to be fools without admitting it.
> And, therefore, the
>existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven.
Just as your million dollar debt to me can be neither proven nor
disproven.
>Curiously, Kurt Godel, the famous mathematician and logician -- you
>know, the uncertainty and undefinability theorems?-- actually did
>write a proof of the existence of God.
If he did, he was wrong. There can be no such proof. There is certainly
no evidence to support any gods.
>He defined God as the
>coexistence of all possible states of being. Most intelligent
>religious people, however, would say that their concept of God
>transcends all logic. Purely undefinable. Possibly, by definition.
Yes, if you define God as nothing, then you can prove that God has
absolutely the same impact on the world as nothing.
Free Lunch
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 2:57 pm, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 12, 1:48 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 12, 2:43 pm, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 11, 5:14 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > beelzebub wrote:
>> > > > > On May 11, 3:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > > > >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> > > > >>> Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
>> > > > >> The lack of belief in gods.
>>
>> > > [beelzebub corrected the semantic argument]
>>
>> > > > > The belief that there is no god, actually.
>>
>> > > > The lack of belief in gods, actually.
>>
>> > > 1. Do you believe in God?
>>
>> > > 2. Do you believe that there is a god, or gods?
>>
>> > > Answer both, without skirting the issue.
>>
>> > You must define God. Otherwise, how can the question be accurately
>> > answered?
>>
>> Define it however you choose (upper or lowercase). It is immaterial
>> to the question--when posed to an atheist. The question is posed to
>> atheists.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>So, you're saying Atheists just don't like the word "God"? They don't
>care what it means? Just remove that word from the dictionaries, and
>Atheists will be happy?
The God of Abraham is quite well-defined. The problem for modern
believers is that none of the claims found in any of the scriptures can
be confirmed. They try to weasel out of the problem the way you are.
>Doesn't sound like much of a philosophy!
It sounds like you are playing Humpty Dumpty.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
Free Lunch
How stupid. I do not believe in any gods that have been defined by any
religions. Got it? It is really simple to understand if you aren't going
out of your way to act like the greatest fool in the world.
Free Lunch
What an amazing inability to understand English you exhibit. Did you
want this discussion in German? Would that make it easier for you to
comprehend?
>The problem is, in the absence of all conventional religion, or even
>any meaningful philosophical positions, what do Atheists believe in?
Your question, repeated again, is still stupid.
>"Science" apparently. Or, their conception of it, anyway. But, the
>scientific method is hardly adequate to deal with all morality and
>social organization.
No one claims it is. Of course religion has shown that it can be utterly
immoral and destructive of society.
>Or, even with fundamentally new ideas in
>conventional science, which are derived intuitively -- no real rules
>to getting new ideas, you know. Atheism sounds like a recipe for
>total stagnation intellectually.
Your ignorant biases are noted. Are you interested in learning or just
repeating religious falsehoods?
Free Lunch
You are acting like a fool
Free Lunch
<yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 11, 6:33 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>>
>> <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 11, 3:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> >> >Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
>>
>> >> The lack of belief in gods.
>>
>> >The belief that there is no god, actually.
>>
>> No.
>
>So you believe in a god or gods?
No.
Free Lunch
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 3:11 pm, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 12, 2:07 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 12, 3:00 pm, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 11, 6:33 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>>
>> > > > <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > >On May 11, 3:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> > > > >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> > > > >> >Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
>>
>> > > > >> The lack of belief in gods.
>>
>> > > > >The belief that there is no god, actually.
>>
>> > > > No.
>>
>> > > So you believe in a god or gods?
>>
>> > How do you define God? If you don't, how can the question be
>> > accurately answered?
>>
>> I spell it "STFU, you twat." Stop hijacking the conversation.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Are atheists all morons?
We're smart enough to recognize that you are a fool.
marika
>
> The God of Abraham is quite well-defined. The problem for modern
> believers is that none of the claims found in any of the scriptures can
> be confirmed.
Thanks for the encouragement,
mk5000
"i'm never going to do this again. I;ve peaked. I'm going to get
better at writing and filmmaking. I've made three movies...I'm going
to make 33"--anthony minghella
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> On May 12, 2:49 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 12:20 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 2:14 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 12, 11:50 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 12, 1:41 pm, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
>
> > > > > > On May 12, 10:52 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 12, 11:48 am, Santolina chamaecyparissus <santol...@juno.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > > > What exactly do so-called "atheists" claim to believe in?
>
> > > > > > > > capacities they might believe in an infinite number of different
> > > > > > > > things. Simple, really, even you should be able to grasp it.
>
> > > > > > > I must be honest. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by this.
>
> > > > > > > "In their capacity as atheists, atheists believe in nothing, but in
> > > > > > > their other human capacities they might believe in an infinite number
> > > > > > > of different things."
>
> > > > > > > Say what?
>
> > > > > > Don't worry, I was prepared to be patient. Though I stated it simply
> > > > > > and straightforwardly, I'll restate it below.
>
> > > > > > > So, how exactly do atheists differ from non-atheists, if they can
> > > > > > > believe the same things?
>
> > > > > > An atheist is someone who does not believe one particular
> > > > > > proposition. There are an infinite number of other propositions that
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > God/Gods. The problem here, is that the God of Monotheism is
> > > > > undefined and undefinable.
>
> > > > Illogical. God is the widely accepted proper name of a particular
> > > > ancient tribal deity.
>
> > > > > And the Gods of polytheism simply
> > > > > represent symbolically various accepted aspects of the real world
> > > > > around us. So what, exactly, do Atheists not believe in?
>
> > > > What you just said (except for your little digression about
> > > > definability). Atheists do not believe in those objects.
>
> > > > > The
> > > > > undefinable? Do atheists think everything in life is clearly defined?
>
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, specifically?
>
> > Or any others. It must be said, though, that some will use the term
> > in the sense of, "I am an atheist in regards to god X." As far as
> > I've ever seen, however, all the regulars on a.a use it in the former
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> of existence.
That's neat.
> Mysteries and structures to existence that have no end,
> and that our understanding can only attempt to grasp, without ever
> fully succeeding.
It's rather pointless to spend even a minute of your life on concepts
that are not even in principle definable, but good luck with it.
> To me, this concept is somewhat consistent with
> certain interpretations of monotheism, in a broad sense. And it could
> be attached to the word "God". It's just a word, after all. We can
> define it any way we wish.
Or refuse to define it, in fact, declare it in principle undefinable,
then berate people who don't see it your way. A rather silly and
inconsiderate way to approach life, you might consider taking up
knitting or something else that will keep you out of trouble.
beelzebub
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
>
>
> >On May 11, 6:33 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
> >> <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On May 11, 3:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> >> >> >Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
>
> >> >> The lack of belief in gods.
>
> >> >The belief that there is no god, actually.
>
> >> No.
>
> >So you believe in a god or gods?
>
> No.
Then as your answer indicates, you *believe* that there is no god.
That is not the *lack* of belief, it is a very specific, concrete
belief. Atheism is a belief. (I accept your apology.) Every time
you are confronted with the notion of theism, you reject it. That is
belief. You aren't living in a vacuum. You wouldn't be here in this
newsgroup, if not to express your beliefs.
Dr. Lippschitz
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:gCKVj.746$lQ1.500@trnddc02...
>
> On 11-May-2008, Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Christianity:
>>
>> "We offer a personal relationship with God."
>>
>> 2. Islam:
>>
>> "There is no God but Allah, the all-powerful, the all-merciful, whom
>> we all worship."
>>
>> 3. Judaism:
>>
>> "We are God's Chosen People."
>
> In fact, a number of the things you have applied to other religions
> can/should be applied to Judaism.
That is correct. The other religions are rational. Judaism is just a tribal,
ego centric cult. Being a jew (khazar, west asian, or whatever term you
choose to use) is a racial group that has spread into Europe over the last
few hundred years. They follow this old hebrew cult more or less but there
are many different sects. Some of these Khazars are even Christians, Moslems
or Hindus. The Khazar, Disraeli, was an Anglican. What we call judaism is in
fact a racial group that calls their group the name of their primary
religion which was never really a religion to begin with since these were
just common customs over a large area of the middle east during the late
stone age.
>
> Susan
>>
>> 4. Hinduism:
>>
>> "There are many paths to truth, but some are more direct than others."
>>
>> 5. Buddhism:
>>
>> "We can transform life's suffering to the peace of Nirvana."
>>
>> 6. Confucianism:
>>
>> "Family and tradition are the basis of a good life, and we are all
>> children of the Emperor."
>>
>> 7. Atheism:
>>
>> "All religion is superstition, we must seek truth through scientific
>> humanism."
beelzebub
> On May 12, 3:09 pm, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So, you're saying Atheists just don't like the word "God"? They don't
> > > care what it means? Just remove that word from the dictionaries, and
> > > Atheists will be happy?
>
> > I'm not saying anything of the sort. It is a simple question, posed
> > to an atheist. Why do you feel the need to co-opt it for your own
> > idiotic purposes? (Asked and answered.)
> .
> > > Doesn't sound like much of a philosophy!
>
> > You don't sound like much of a philosopher.
[Jerry Kraus played charades:]
> Sounds like "atheists" are reduced to word games and nay-saying when
> they're asked simple questions. Sounds like they really don't know
> what, if anything, they stand for.
Sounds like a simpleton. Sounds like a simpleton who likes to put
words in people's mouths, and construct straw arguments because none
of the other kids will play with him. Sounds like everyone, including
myself, is laughing at his idiot ass. That's what it *sounds like* to
everyone.
[Kraus prattled:]
> Sounds like they have no coherent
> philosophy of much of anything. Sounds like their appreciation of
> philosophy is about at the same level as the Creationist's
> appreciation of science -- sniping, without presenting any real
> alternatives.
Sounds like a simpleton who doesn't understand the difference between
philosophy and religion....
Free Lunch
<yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 12, 4:53 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:00:08 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>>
>>
>>
>> <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On May 11, 6:33 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:30:34 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>>
>> >> <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On May 11, 3:07 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> >> >> >Splendid. YOU define Atheism, Mr. Atheist.
>>
>> >> >> The lack of belief in gods.
>>
>> >> >The belief that there is no god, actually.
>>
>> >> No.
>>
>> >So you believe in a god or gods?
>>
>> No.
>
>Then as your answer indicates, you *believe* that there is no god.
No.
>That is not the *lack* of belief, it is a very specific, concrete
>belief.
No.
>Atheism is a belief.
No.
>(I accept your apology.)
Your lie is noted.
>Every time
>you are confronted with the notion of theism, you reject it. That is
>belief.
I don't reject theism. I reject all claims about gods that are
unsupported by evidence.
>You aren't living in a vacuum. You wouldn't be here in this
>newsgroup, if not to express your beliefs.
Christians act as if they like to oppress those who do not kowtow to
their foolish beliefs.
fla...@verizon.net
On 12-May-2008, Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 10:58 am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 12-May-2008, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Confucians and
> > > Atheists have all told me that they don't consider their religion to
> > > be a religion.
> >
> > Yeah, get one or 2 oddballs (that can't be verified) & that makes it
> > true.
> >
> > The fact that you know nothing about Judaism (for starters) makes
> > this claim suspect as well.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Frankly, Susan what I'm describing are the most common views expressed
> to me by members of these various religions.
Frankly, you are lying.