What is Atheism Really?
kenfran
An atheist is, of course, a person with no invisible means of support.
John Strong wrote:
>
> [irrelevant political newsgroups removed from followups]
>
> David B. Greene (da...@antispam.halcyon.com) wrote:
> : gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart) wrote:
> : >Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@netmeg.net) wrote:
> : >: some...@infi.net wrote:
>
> : >: >Atheism is not a religion.
> : >: >I understand that you are trying to sell the idea that "A" is "A", and "B"
> : >: >is also "A."
> : >: >That is your theory and that is kewl, however, it doesn't make it a fact.
>
> : >: If atheism is not a religion, then maybe you could explain to me
> : >: what a religion is.
>
> : >One may call atheism a religion or not a religion, since one may have
> : >different criteria for calling it such.
>
> This "one" must also be a dumbass, because if one weren't, one wouldn't
> obfuscate the issue by making up definitions to suit one's own
> preferences.
>
> : >It is, however, a faith, and no amount of bullshit redefinitions is
> : >going to change that as long as the people discussing it are using
> : >a standard dictionary. If they are not using a standard dictionary,
> : >then I get to write my own special dictionary as well, and it defines
> : >"idiot" as someone that tries to claim that atheism is not a "faith".
>
> What a load of ignorant crap! This isn't a difficult concept.
> Atheism = lack of theism. As an atheist, I don't believe in a god.
> That is very very different than saying "I believe there is no god". If
> you don't see the glaring difference, either kill yourself for being
> so goddamned stupid, or take a couple classes in logic.
>
> Atheism, at its core, is simply a lack of belief. Now, are you saying that
> a lack of belief = belief? A lack of food = food? A lack of intelligence
> = intelligence?
>
> There are atheists that take it one step further and state that there is
> no god. This does not change the fundamental definition of athiesm,
> however. Athiesm is still, simply, a lack of belief.
>
> : Excellent points, Mark. Atheism is too broad to be pigeonholed by a simple
> : dictionary definition. There is a lot of tradiotion and history that has
> : shaped the atheist belief system. I'd suggest that those bound to a
> : simplistic dictionary definition broaden their horizons with a look at the
> : Encyclopedia Brittanica for example.
>
> Athiesm is not "broad". Atheism is very clearly defined. The extent to
> which individuals embrace an athiestic outlook is broad.
>
> -John aka Dr. Monkey Spank
> Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute
David B. Greene
>David B. Greene (da...@antispam.halcyon.com) wrote:
>: Excellent points, Mark. Atheism is too broad to be pigeonholed by a simple
>: dictionary definition. There is a lot of tradition and history that has
>: shaped the atheist belief system. I'd suggest that those bound to a
>: simplistic dictionary definition broaden their horizons with a look at the
>: Encyclopedia Brittanica for example.
>Athiesm is not "broad". Atheism is very clearly defined.
Sorry, John, I stand corrected. Atheists are very narrow minded.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Dave Greene
Michelle Malkin
>Dave Greene
And what do you call a person who defines an entire group by the comments
from one person? I'd call him a David Greene.
Michelle Malkin
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
John Strong
David B. Greene (da...@antispam.halcyon.com) wrote:
: jst...@umbc.edu (John Strong) wrote:
: >[irrelevant political newsgroups removed from followups]
: >David B. Greene (da...@antispam.halcyon.com) wrote:
: >: Excellent points, Mark. Atheism is too broad to be pigeonholed by a simple
: >: dictionary definition. There is a lot of tradition and history that has
: >: shaped the atheist belief system. I'd suggest that those bound to a
: >: simplistic dictionary definition broaden their horizons with a look at the
: >: Encyclopedia Brittanica for example.
: >Athiesm is not "broad". Atheism is very clearly defined.
: Sorry, John, I stand corrected. Atheists are very narrow minded.
: Thanks for clearing that up.
Yes, once you've looked at an issue and have made up your mind, you are
indeed narrow-minded concerning that issue. If you weren't, you'd
never be able to make a decision about anything. I'm glad I could help.
-J
John Strong
Michelle Malkin (malk...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene) wrote:
: >jst...@umbc.edu (John Strong) wrote:
: >>[irrelevant political newsgroups removed from followups]
: >>David B. Greene (da...@antispam.halcyon.com) wrote:
: >>: Excellent points, Mark. Atheism is too broad to be pigeonholed by a simple
: >>: dictionary definition. There is a lot of tradition and history that has
: >>: shaped the atheist belief system. I'd suggest that those bound to a
: >>: simplistic dictionary definition broaden their horizons with a look at the
: >>: Encyclopedia Brittanica for example.
: >>Athiesm is not "broad". Atheism is very clearly defined.
: >Sorry, John, I stand corrected. Atheists are very narrow minded.
: >Thanks for clearing that up.
: >Dave Greene
: And what do you call a person who defines an entire group by the comments
: from one person? I'd call him a David Greene.
Exactly. This "Dave Greene" conveniently snipped out the part right after
my "Atheism is not broad" statement where I said that the degrees to which
an individual applies the concept of atheism can be broad. I don't know
why he would be so dishonest as to snip this out -- perhaps just so that it
would be a setup for his cute (and fallacious) comment. But my original,
complete statement describes why, as Michele quite rightly points out,
atheism is not necessarily defined by what one atheist says, including me.
The same applies for Xians and Xianity. I believe I have correctly
described the concepts of atheism (weak atheism) and strong atheism.
If I'm not so eloquent, take a look at www.infidels.org.
-John
Heh V. Sarcasm
repoMan wrote:
> Living by reason and past experiences doesn't rule out being
opinionated
> at all. To suggest so serves only to make you appear profoundly
ignorant.
Ah, that's just your opinion.
Harry Krishna
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
> You're wasting a skull, Jose. Reality is not your friend.
Reality can be your friend! All you have to do is redefine it! Try
mysticism. You can be your own God. You can be your own universe!
Moo Shantih
"The solution to every problem is that there is no problem. Once you
realize this, there are no longer any problems."
- Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
repoMan
In alt.flame Heh V. Sarcasm <yeh...@fbc.org> wrote:
: repoMan wrote:
It is also my opinion that you have a rather keen sense for the obvious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Brotherhood Of The Flaming Monks Of The Ozarks(tm) +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\ /T-BOT-F-MOTO/ >Rangers Lead The Way! +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\ /T-BOT-F-MOTO/ +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\ /T-BOT-F-MOTO/ >Airborne All The Way! +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\ /T-BOT-F-MOTO/ +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\/T-BOT-F-MOTO/ >Terror of alt.flame +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\-BOT-F-MOTO/ +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\OT-F-MOTO/ >Hater of alt.religion.monica +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\-F-MOTO/ +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\-MOTO/ >Founder of alt.sex.fetish.drew-barrymore +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\OTO/ +
\T-BOT-F-MOTO\O/ ICTORY THROUGH RIGHTEOUS FLAMING. +
--------------------------------------------------------------
Creotik
Harry Krishna wrote:
Reality is Beautiful! And you don't even have to redefine it... just
understand it, and it will be your friend, though you may have to
redefine yourself :)
Creotik
Steven Lalewicz
I think people have a problem with the definition of
atheism because they mix atheism with naturalism.
From my dictionary (The Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th
Edition).
Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Naturalism: 2a, a theory of the world that excludes the
supernatural or spiritual. b any moral or religious
system based on this theory.
Nihilism: 1 The rejection of all religious and moral
principles. 2 an extreme form of scepticism characterized
by the assertion that nothing really exists.
(I would modify that 2nd meaning to actually say
2 an extreme form of scepticism characterized by the assertion
that nothing [of any meaning and value] really exists. )
For completion -
Theism: belief in the existiance of gods or a god esp a God
supernaturally revealed to man (cf deism) and sustaining a
personal relation to his creatures.
I would say that most of the atheists who post here (alt.atheism)
are naturalists or budding nihilists. I guess we should have some
buddhists posting here to give a better spectrum of the many world
views atheists can hold.
I guess if one wanted to enter a philosophical discussion with
an atheist, it would be wise to find out what his exact world
view is first.
Regards,
Steve.
Zepp
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:06:17 +0100, Steven Lalewicz <st...@mfltd.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>I think people have a problem with the definition of
>atheism because they mix atheism with naturalism.
>
>From my dictionary (The Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th
>Edition).
>
>Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
>
If that's it for the definitions, then it's a very poor dictionary
indeed. But my guess is you picked the one definition of a half-dozen
or more that comes closest to the niche you want to push atheism into,
and used that.
>Naturalism: 2a, a theory of the world that excludes the
>supernatural or spiritual. b any moral or religious
>system based on this theory.
>
>Nihilism: 1 The rejection of all religious and moral
>principles. 2 an extreme form of scepticism characterized
>by the assertion that nothing really exists.
>
>(I would modify that 2nd meaning to actually say
>2 an extreme form of scepticism characterized by the assertion
>that nothing [of any meaning and value] really exists. )
>
>For completion -
>
>Theism: belief in the existiance of gods or a god esp a God
>supernaturally revealed to man (cf deism) and sustaining a
>personal relation to his creatures.
>
>I would say that most of the atheists who post here (alt.atheism)
>are naturalists or budding nihilists. I guess we should have some
>buddhists posting here to give a better spectrum of the many world
>views atheists can hold.
I would say you were missing the largest contingent of
atheists--skeptics. Most Christians define atheists as people who
reject the possibility that the Bible has any validity as a scientific
document, and one dones't have to believe the universe is meaningless
to reject that nonsense.
Watson II
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
> So if you have an answer to the question of whether there is a god
> but have no beliefs, then you don't believe your answer to be
correct.
>
> You don't get the luggage or the home game.
I'd like to buy a vowel.
G. Mark Stewart
Steven Lalewicz (st...@mfltd.co.uk) wrote:
: I think people have a problem with the definition of
: atheism because they mix atheism with naturalism.
I think people wouldn't have a problem with definitions if they just
said what the definition they've assumed is prior to arguing about it,
and in the absence of said explicit definition, they realized that
their definition is not necessarily that of their audience.
repoMan
In alt.flame Steven Lalewicz <st...@mfltd.co.uk> wrote:
: Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
: Naturalism: 2a, a theory of the world that excludes the
: supernatural or spiritual. b any moral or religious
: system based on this theory.
: Nihilism: 1 The rejection of all religious and moral
: principles. 2 an extreme form of scepticism characterized
: by the assertion that nothing really exists.
: Theism: belief in the existiance of gods or a god esp a God
: supernaturally revealed to man (cf deism) and sustaining a
: personal relation to his creatures.
Lame-ass-ism: Writing stooOOpid dictionary entries on usenet.
usually practiced by dumb-fukk numb-nutted little bastards when they
want to appear more intellectually gifted than they are.
Gus Smedstad
Jim Sarbeck wrote:
>
> And I my atheism is based on faith, because in my investigations,
> I have concluded that reasoning upon evidence is not strong enough to
> explain my belief. Your mileage may vary.
>
That's interesting. Is that true of all aspects of your atheistic
views?
For example, I don't feel that my belief that the god of the bible does
not exist is based on faith. I think there's sufficient evidence that
this particular god does not exist.
On the other hand, I believe that no gods exist. In that regard, my
belief is, as you put it, based on faith. I don't have sufficient
evidence to say an abstract, impersonal creator does not exist - yet,
I'm fairly sure there isn't one. It's like my belief that the Invisible
Pink Unicorn does not exist.
- Gus
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:06:17 +0100, Steven Lalewicz <st...@mfltd.co.uk>
announced to all:
>I think people have a problem with the definition of
>atheism because they mix atheism with naturalism.
>
>From my dictionary (The Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th
>Edition).
>
>Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
From the etymological breakdown: atheism. a + theism. a: greek prefix
meaning "lack of or without". theism: having a belief in a god(ess) or
god(ess)(s/es).
So, literally: atheism: lacking or without a belief in a god(ess) or
god(ess)(s/es).
No theory. No belief. A lack of a belief.
But we get nitwits like define a lack of belief as a belief, which is
inherently self-contradictory.
[snip]
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin
<dkresch><at><execpc><dot><com>
G. Mark Stewart
Watson II (he...@fbc.org) wrote:
I'll extract your prize from the Vowels of the Earth, so you get "e" and "a".
George Ricker
In article <5uorvc$7i7$4...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
Stewart) wrote:
> G. Marcaigh (ra...@ica.net) wrote:
> : da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene) writes: > jst...@umbc.edu
(John Strong) wrote:
> : > >[irrelevant political newsgroups removed from followups]
> : > >David B. Greene (da...@antispam.halcyon.com) wrote:
> : > >: Excellent points, Mark. Atheism is too broad to be pigeonholed by
a simple
> : > >: dictionary definition. There is a lot of tradition and history
that has
> : > >: shaped the atheist belief system. I'd suggest that those bound to a
> : > >: simplistic dictionary definition broaden their horizons with a
look at the
> : > >: Encyclopedia Brittanica for example.
> : > >Athiesm is not "broad". Atheism is very clearly defined.
> : > Sorry, John, I stand corrected. Atheists are very narrow minded.
> : > Thanks for clearing that up.
> : > Dave Greene
>
> : What kind of an idiot would claim there is an atheist belief system?
> : Atheists are narrow-minded in only one way, they demand truth replace
> : faith, that reason stand supreme.
>
>
> So if you have an answer to the question of whether there is a god
> but have no beliefs, then you don't believe your answer to be correct.
>
> You don't get the luggage or the home game.
>
>
> GMS
> http://www.svs.com/users/gmark
The point is that there is no "atheist belief system" not that atheists
have no beliefs. Consider the opposite position. Theists are people who
believe in a god or gods. Beyond that statement of belief, can you describe
for us a "theist belief system" that will be valid for all theists? I
sincerely doubt it. Once you get beyond that simple statement of belief,
the potential variations become virtually unlimited.
By the same token, the atheist lacks belief in a god or gods. But beyond
that lack of belief, there is no standard set of atheist beliefs. Atheism
provides the starting point from which one's philosophy may be constructed,
but atheism does not, in and of itself, provide that philosophy.
Certainly, it can be useful to study the past lives of atheists and the
history of freethought in general. But the notion that there is some sort
of "historical tradition" that binds all atheists to a particular point of
view is just as erroneous as the notion that all theists are Christians or
even that they all are monotheists.
--
George Ricker
"Theology is not what we know about God,
but what we do not know about Nature."
Robert G. Ingersoll - "Some Mistakes of Moses"
G. Mark Stewart
George Ricker (gri...@iu.net) wrote:
: In article <5uorvc$7i7$4...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
: Stewart) wrote:
[...]
: The point is that there is no "atheist belief system" not that atheists
: have no beliefs. Consider the opposite position. Theists are people who
: believe in a god or gods. Beyond that statement of belief, can you describe
: for us a "theist belief system" that will be valid for all theists? I
: sincerely doubt it. Once you get beyond that simple statement of belief,
: the potential variations become virtually unlimited.
What have you decided is the difference between "a set of beliefs"
and "a belief system"? And then how does that disprove my point that
athesists have faith?
: By the same token, the atheist lacks belief in a god or gods. But beyond
: that lack of belief, there is no standard set of atheist beliefs. Atheism
: provides the starting point from which one's philosophy may be constructed,
: but atheism does not, in and of itself, provide that philosophy.
The belief that there is no god seems to be a pretty standard atheist
set of beliefs.
: Certainly, it can be useful to study the past lives of atheists and the
: history of freethought in general. But the notion that there is some sort
: of "historical tradition" that binds all atheists to a particular point of
: view is just as erroneous as the notion that all theists are Christians or
: even that they all are monotheists.
So what is the significance of "a historical tradition"? And what would
such constitute? A religion? And what does that claim support?
Jim Sarbeck
In article <5uu0a3$90k$1...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
Stewart) wrote:
: George Ricker (gri...@iu.net) wrote:
: : In article <5uorvc$7i7$4...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
: : Stewart) wrote:
:
:
: The belief that there is no god seems to be a pretty standard atheist
: set of beliefs.
Wrong. The absense of belief in deity is the sole member of the set I call
"attitudinal positions of atheism." The rest of the beliefs are *about
atheism* and are actually based on observation of people you identify
(rightly or wrongly) as atheists. Whether a lack of belief is a belief is
an interesting question, I would say by definition it's not. That's why I
use the term "attitudinal positions." Some other terms might work as well,
but IMO not 'belief'.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
G. Mark Stewart
Jim Sarbeck (cjp...@batnet.nospam.com) wrote:
: In article <5uu0a3$90k$1...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
: Stewart) wrote:
: : George Ricker (gri...@iu.net) wrote:
: : : In article <5uorvc$7i7$4...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
: : : Stewart) wrote:
: :
: :
: : The belief that there is no god seems to be a pretty standard atheist
: : set of beliefs.
: Wrong. The absense of belief in deity is the sole member of the set I call
The claim you are making is that atheism is the absence of belief in
gods, and you are therefore merely changing the definition to your own.
If you want to claim that atheism is only the lack of belief in god, you
are free to do so, but my original statement that the general definition
of atheism as a belief that there is no god is still a belief, and
therefore a faith.
: "attitudinal positions of atheism." The rest of the beliefs are *about
: atheism* and are actually based on observation of people you identify
: (rightly or wrongly) as atheists. Whether a lack of belief is a belief is
: an interesting question, I would say by definition it's not. That's why I
Not interesting at all, since a lack of a belief is only that, and if you
want to claim that atheism is a lack of belief, all my previous comments
on that stand. Your personal definition of atheism is not relevant to the
position that belief in no god is still belief.
I'm not sure what motivates people to want to claim that belief in no god
is not faith, but I suspect it is ironically very similar motivation to that
which motivates theists to frequently pepper conversations with how "sorry"
they are for everyone that doesn't share their beliefs.
: use the term "attitudinal positions." Some other terms might work as well,
: but IMO not 'belief'.
You're welcome to amplify that after reading the above.
Libertarius
The confusion about what is "theism" and what is "atheism" is
immense.
"Theism" is simply the belief in ANY entity one calls a
"God"" or "Goddess". Some Christians believe in three
such entities, which they call "God the Father", "God the
Son", and "God the Wholy Ghost/Spirit". Some of these
equate "God the Father" with the YHWH of the Bible, but
some will say that YHWH was really "God the Son". There are
other definitions. However, NO Christian believes in "God
Zeus" or "Goddess Aphrodite", so, with respect to THOSE
entities, they are ATHEISTIS.
What is "atheism", then?
First, "atheism" means refusing to call ANY entity a "God".
If you could prove, which is considered impossible, that the
Universe did have a "creator", the atheist would say OK, but
that "creator" is NOT (A) "GOD".
Secondly, "atheism" may mean a disbelief in some specific
"God", such as the Christian described above. Usually,
an "atheist" is one who ALSO disbelieves in the existence
of the Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) "God".
Finally, an interesting view is that of "Pantheism", which is
neither theism, strictly speaking, nor atheism, strictly speaking.
Like many of the ancient Greek philosphers, a "Pantheist" believes
in the existence of the Universe (Nature, Cosmos), and attributes
some of the qualities, properties, actions to this Cosmic Totality
that "theists" usually attribute to a "God" or "Goddess".
For more information on "Pantheism", see:
Scientific pantheism (theory and history):
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/index.htm
The Universal Pantheist Society:
http://users.aol.com/pansociety/index.html
Hopefully, this will help clear up some confusion.
Libertarius
==================================
DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY
==================================
Zol...@netcom.ca
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
> Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> : In article <5uu0a3$90k$1...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
> : Stewart) wrote:
> : : : In article <5uors.com>, (G. Mark
> : : : Stewart) wrote:
> : : The belief that there is no god seems to be a pretty standard atheist
> : : set of beliefs.
> : Wrong. The absense of belief in deity is the sole member of the set I call
> The claim you are making is that atheism is the absence of belief in
> gods, and you are therefore merely changing the definition to yourown.
> on that stand. Your personal definition of atheism is not relevant to the
> position that belief in no god is still belief.
>
> I'm not sure what motivates people to want to claim that belief in no god
> is not faith, but I suspect it is ironically very similar motivation to that
> which motivates theists to frequently pepper conversations with how "sorry"
> they are for everyone that doesn't share their beliefs.
>
> : use the term "attitudinal positions." Some other terms might work as well,
> : but IMO not 'belief'.
>
> You're welcome to amplify that after reading the above.
>
> GMS
> http://www.svs.com/users/gmark
Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
atheism. When trying to defend their position, they define it as
a-theism, a non-belief in God, but then once they have finished that
argument, they exploit the pun and try to maintain that it is reasonable
to actively assert that the non-existence of God has been proved.
Michael :]
John Popelish
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
> The claim you are making is that atheism is the absence of belief in
> gods, and you are therefore merely changing the definition to your own.
>
> If you want to claim that atheism is only the lack of belief in god, you
> are free to do so, but my original statement that the general definition
> of atheism as a belief that there is no god is still a belief, and
> therefore a faith.
> Not interesting at all, since a lack of a belief is only that, and if you
> want to claim that atheism is a lack of belief, all my previous comments
> on that stand. Your personal definition of atheism is not relevant to the
> position that belief in no god is still belief.
>
> I'm not sure what motivates people to want to claim that belief in no god
> is not faith, but I suspect it is ironically very similar motivation to that
> which motivates theists to frequently pepper conversations with how "sorry"
> they are for everyone that doesn't share their beliefs.
>
What motivates you to degrade the definition of "faith" with respect ot
atheism?
For persons of religious zeal, faith is a positive mental state that
suspends disbelief in the face of non evidence. Just having confidence
in the truth or falsity of a proposition (belief) is a completely
different thing. The confidence can come from evaluation of evidence,
or by steadfastly ignoring it, or by pure guess. Belief is just the
working assumptions that your thoughts are based on. Faith is a
specific subset of belief.
But I am curious, what is your point in persuing this equating of belief
and faith? If we all gave up our existing definitions of these words,
and accepted yours, what would be the outcome? You seem to be saying
that this is an important point, but I don't see what all the sweat is
about.
John Popelish
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 7 Sep 1997 10:40:03 GMT, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart) announced
to all:
>
>George Ricker (gri...@iu.net) wrote:
>: In article <5uorvc$7i7$4...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
>: Stewart) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>: The point is that there is no "atheist belief system" not that atheists
>: have no beliefs. Consider the opposite position. Theists are people who
>: believe in a god or gods. Beyond that statement of belief, can you describe
>: for us a "theist belief system" that will be valid for all theists? I
>: sincerely doubt it. Once you get beyond that simple statement of belief,
>: the potential variations become virtually unlimited.
>
>What have you decided is the difference between "a set of beliefs"
>and "a belief system"? And then how does that disprove my point that
>athesists have faith?
Each atheist has a set of beliefs (for the most part), but those are not
beholden to atheism, nor is atheism itself a belief system.
And as to atheists having faith.....that's been done to death. Atheists do
not have faith to be atheists.
>
>
>: By the same token, the atheist lacks belief in a god or gods. But beyond
>: that lack of belief, there is no standard set of atheist beliefs. Atheism
>: provides the starting point from which one's philosophy may be constructed,
>: but atheism does not, in and of itself, provide that philosophy.
>
>The belief that there is no god seems to be a pretty standard atheist
>set of beliefs.
1. The real deal is it is a lack of belief
2. Some do claim that there is no god.
3. One belief makes not a SYSTEM of beliefs.
G. Mark Stewart
Zol...@netcom.ca wrote:
: G. Mark Stewart wrote:
: > Jim Sarbeck wrote:
: > : In article <5uu0a3$90k$1...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
[...]
: Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
: atheism. When trying to defend their position, they define it as
: a-theism, a non-belief in God, but then once they have finished that
: argument, they exploit the pun and try to maintain that it is reasonable
: to actively assert that the non-existence of God has been proved.
Yeah, ain't they adorable?
Stix
Zol...@netcom.ca posted the following to alt.atheism:
> Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
>atheism.
There's only one definition of atheism, however worded, namely:
"The lack of theism."
> When trying to defend their position,
We're not required to defend our position; you're required to defend yours
as yours is the positive claim of the existence of something.
> they define it as a-theism, a non-belief in God,
Yup.
> but then once they have finished that argument,
It's not an argument, it's a definition.
> they exploit the pun
What pun?
> and try to maintain that it is reasonable
>to actively assert that the non-existence of God has been proved.
Not proved, as one cannot prove a negative. Just that it's reasonable to
assert the non-existence of a god-thingumy given the lack of coherent
definition for what it is you refer to when you say "god," the absence of
evidence for the existence of "god," and the specious arguments for the
existence of a "god" which always collapse under scrutiny.
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
G. Mark Stewart
: > If you want to claim that atheism is only the lack of belief in god, you
: > are free to do so, but my original statement that the general definition
: > of atheism as a belief that there is no god is still a belief, and
: > therefore a faith.
: > Not interesting at all, since a lack of a belief is only that, and if you
: > want to claim that atheism is a lack of belief, all my previous comments
: > on that stand. Your personal definition of atheism is not relevant to the
: > position that belief in no god is still belief.
: >
: > I'm not sure what motivates people to want to claim that belief in no god
: > is not faith, but I suspect it is ironically very similar motivation to that
: > which motivates theists to frequently pepper conversations with how "sorry"
: > they are for everyone that doesn't share their beliefs.
: What motivates you to degrade the definition of "faith" with respect ot
: atheism?
Pure evil, I guess.
: For persons of religious zeal, faith is a positive mental state that
: suspends disbelief in the face of non evidence. Just having confidence
: in the truth or falsity of a proposition (belief) is a completely
: different thing. The confidence can come from evaluation of evidence,
Anyway, you seem to be limiting this to the definition of faith as in some
particular religion, but we're rather discussing this as the general term
of faith and seeing how religion fits into it. And religion is a more
subjective term than faith, which is rather specific.
The claim was that atheism is based on logic and different from religion
which is based on faith. When the definition of atheism is a belief that
god does not exist, which is not provable, it is faith.
G. Mark Stewart
Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: Zol...@netcom.ca posted the following to alt.atheism:
: > Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
: >atheism.
: There's only one definition of atheism, however worded, namely:
: "The lack of theism."
You don't really have a straight face when you say this, do you? I'd
be hard-pressed to find only "one definition of atheism" like that in
a mention in a Bazooka Joe comic.
Silly troller.
keith green (simctr)
G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
: Zol...@netcom.ca wrote:
: : G. Mark Stewart wrote:
: : > Jim Sarbeck wrote:
: : > : In article <5uu0a3$90k$1...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
: [...]
: : Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
: : atheism. When trying to defend their position, they define it as
: : a-theism, a non-belief in God, but then once they have finished that
: : argument, they exploit the pun and try to maintain that it is reasonable
: : to actively assert that the non-existence of God has been proved.
No doubt there are some atheists like this. I've met a few myself, so
I know they exist. However, it's important to distinguish between the
infantile atheist who just babbles what she's memorized from chance
meetings with other 'atheists,' and the profound atheist who has actually
considered the issues for herself and come to certain conclusions.
OTOH, there is another issue that might be confusing you (don't know
for sure) and that's this: Many atheists (and I'm one of them, though
by some people's definition I'm an agnostic and not an atheist) feel
that in light of there not being any credible evidence to support the
existence of any deity, that the most correct course of action for us
is to live our lives AS IF none existed.
Many theists (and some agnostics of a different flavor) might ( and do )
maintain that this is not an 'honest' or 'correct' approach. They say,
"Well, if you don't know, then you ought to lead your life as if you don't
know." And that would be true, except for the following: in other aspects
of our lives, we ignore possibilities that seem unlikely or preposterous
to us when we have no evidence. If this were not the case, we could have
no science whatsoever and logic would be utterly useless to us. The reason
is that evidence does not exist. That is, there will always be a case in
our lives when we haven't got enough evidence to reach an absolute
conclusion. For example, you claim that planets kept in their orbits by
gravitational forces. Then I claim, "NONONONO...planets are kept in their
orbits by angels pushing them....you just don't have the proper instru-
mentation to detect them! The 'gravitational' forces that you think you
are measuring are the whims of these capricious angels...that they could
turn off whenever they wanted to. It's really got nothing whatever to do
with the motions of the planets."
This may sound like an absurd comparison, but it is no more absurd than
the god hypothesis. Not one iota. Is it necessary to deny the existence
of god? Not at all. Is it necessary (for logical, or practical
consistency) to act as if there were no gods? I think, yes.
In Popper's _Objective Knowledge_, he rejects what he calls
"The Commonsense Theory (or bucket theory) of Knowledge" and accepts
"The Commonsense Theory of Realism." Despite the fact that I don't feel
comfortable with the term 'commonsense' (which is, I think, a grotesque
misnomer), I reckon I pretty much agree with that theory of realism.
And I pretty much believe that every single sane person accepts this
theory (regardless of whether they realize it, or claim to believe it).
I will note that Popper isn't trying to support atheism in that book
(and least not directly) and for all I know he might be a christian or
a buddhist or a muslim. I'm just applying what I got out of that book
to every day life. I will also note that Popper seems to be coming into
to disrepute: I've seen some philosophers (like Paul Kurtz) hold him
responsible for the decline of science and others (can't recall a reference
at the moment) claim that he recanted his views in later life for
(and my memory fails me here, so it's probably the wrong term) something
called 'Systematic Analysis' or 'Method Analysis' or something like that.
Regardless, the book made a helluva lotta sense to me when I read it ...
even more so than Bertrand Russell's writings.
These provisos aside, this is what makes sense to me. And I do what
makes sense to me. I don't expect anyone else to abide by what makes
sense to me. And by the same token, I don't have immediate plans to
act on someone's else's convictions when they make no sense whatsoever
to me.
Also, I will say that I have no interest whatsoever in debating the
meanings of terms like 'agnosticism,' 'faith,' or 'atheism.' Good
definitions are important contributions to any discussion but it has
been my experience that those who go around saying things like "BY
DEFINITION, X" are people of mediocre talents with a poor grasp of
the relation between academia and reality. I consider myself an
agnostic of the atheist persuasion. Agnosticism synopsizes my epis-
temology. But I'm well aware that the practical consequences of this
particular epistemology are indistinguishable from those of strong
atheism. Call it atheism, if you wish, or an agnosticism, or an
bananaism. Makes little difference. Arguing terminology is one of the
least interesting activities in which to engage.
Finally, the issue of 'hubris' is a red herring for the true believer
to invoke. Atheists do not, as a general rule, possess it to any greater
or lesser degree than any other believer. But if it must be mentioned,
then it must also be mentioned that what the true believer is asking the
nonbeliever to do is not to 'believe in god,' but to 'believe the believer,'
i.e. to trust the true-believer's judgement on the issue. The true believer
will say 'trust god,' or 'believe The Word,' but the true believer himself
has made a judgement - no matter how dishonestly he might try to represent
that judgement - a personal judgement that X is true. He would like to
push the issue aside and say he has made no judgement. That he has merely
discovered, or (in a fit of equivocation, to be sure) that God has made
the judgement or has imbued the believer with the faith. But the bottom,
inescapable conclusion is that the believer himself has made a judgement,
and it is THAT judgement that the believer is asking one to accept, sans
evidence. And then they have the gall to accuse atheists (or agnostics)
of hubris.
k
--
My employers disagree with everything I say, keith green, nan
write, think, believe, feel, do, or plan to do. <kgr...@ida.org>
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8994/ <thef...@geocities.com>
Jim Sarbeck
In article <5v0tcd$l31$2...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
Stewart) wrote:
:
: The claim was that atheism is based on logic and different from religion
: which is based on faith. When the definition of atheism is a belief that
: god does not exist, which is not provable, it is faith.
:
Belief that a possible deity exists and belief that no possible deity
exists, are similar in that neither belief can be publicly proved by
pointing to objective indisputable evidence. If either one could be so
proven, it would have been done. In this way both beliefs are like faith.
It is also possible that some believers of both types have a trusting
commitment to, and draw inspiration of a sort from, their belief, also
like faith. As some religions entail complex and possibly internally
contradictory definitions of deity, it is misleading to generalize beyond
this.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Joe Long
>On the other hand, I believe that no gods exist. In that regard, my
>belief is, as you put it, based on faith. I don't have sufficient
>evidence to say an abstract, impersonal creator does not exist - yet,
>I'm fairly sure there isn't one. It's like my belief that the Invisible
>Pink Unicorn does not exist.
I've got one in my backyard.
--
Joe Long
jlong at mti dot net (j...@mti.net is my antispam address)
http://www.mti.net business
http://www.rnbw.com personal
Stix
G. Mark Stewart posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Stix
>: There's only one definition of atheism, however worded, namely:
>
>: "The lack of theism."
>You don't really have a straight face when you say this, do you?
Considering it's the definition of "atheism," of course I do.
> I'd be hard-pressed to find only "one definition of atheism" like that in
>a mention in a Bazooka Joe comic.
What else does it mean then, bright boy?
>Silly troller.
Loudmouthed wanker.
Joe Long
On 7 Sep 1997 14:14:39 GMT, cjp...@batnet.nospam.com (Jim Sarbeck)
wrote:
>Wrong. The absense of belief in deity is the sole member of the set I call
>"attitudinal positions of atheism." The rest of the beliefs are *about
>atheism* and are actually based on observation of people you identify
>(rightly or wrongly) as atheists. Whether a lack of belief is a belief is
>an interesting question, I would say by definition it's not. That's why I
>use the term "attitudinal positions." Some other terms might work as well,
>but IMO not 'belief'.
Hmm, absence of belief vs. belief in absence. Ok, this is easy to
determine in your case.
If I ask you the question, "Is there a God?" would you answer:
"Yes." Then you have a belief system based on faith (in God), as
there is no proof to support your belief.
"I don't know." Then you do not have faith either in God or in the
absence of God.
"No." If that is your answer, then you have a belief system based on
faith (that there is no God), as there is no proof to support your
belief.
Joe Long
On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 16:09:56 +0000, John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
wrote:
>What motivates you to degrade the definition of "faith" with respect ot
>atheism?
Clarifying is not degrading.
>For persons of religious zeal, faith is a positive mental state that
>suspends disbelief in the face of non evidence. Just having confidence
>in the truth or falsity of a proposition (belief) is a completely
>different thing. The confidence can come from evaluation of evidence,
>or by steadfastly ignoring it, or by pure guess. Belief is just the
>working assumptions that your thoughts are based on. Faith is a
>specific subset of belief.
It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
is not based on faith. I think it's often either insecurity, or
arrogance. An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
"I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
Rockett Crawford
keith green (simctr) wrote:
>
> G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
>
> : Zol...@netcom.ca wrote:
> : : G. Mark Stewart wrote:
> : : > Jim Sarbeck wrote:
> : : > : In article <5uu0a3$90k$1...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
>
> : [...]
>
> : : Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
> : : atheism. When trying to defend their position, they define it as
> : : a-theism, a non-belief in God, but then once they have finished that
> : : argument, they exploit the pun and try to maintain that it is reasonable
> : : to actively assert that the non-existence of God has been proved.
>
> No doubt there are some atheists like this. I've met a few myself, so
> I know they exist. However, it's important to distinguish between the
> infantile atheist who just babbles what she's memorized from chance
> meetings with other 'atheists,' and the profound atheist who has actually
> considered the issues for herself and come to certain conclusions.
>
> OTOH, there is another issue that might be confusing you (don't know
> for sure) and that's this: Many atheists (and I'm one of them, though
> by some people's definition I'm an agnostic and not an atheist) feel
> that in light of there not being any credible evidence to support the
> existence of any deity, that the most correct course of action for us
> is to live our lives AS IF none existed.
I think most Atheists on this ng think along the same lines that I
do that we have to keep our minds open to all possibilities no matter
how ridiculous they are like the existence of a god of a particular
religion or the existence of the Easter Bunny, of fairies, UFOs,
Big Foot, Lock Nest Monster, etc...
I agree that as long as there is insufficient evidence (and very
probable
alternate explanations as to claimed phenomena) that we can assume they
aren't real and function as if it were so.
I have never seen any Atheist on this ng assert what the initial poster
is claiming we have: "that the non-existence of God has been proved".
I don't think most Atheists in this ng will say it is "proven" that any
of these ridiculous concepts are not true since we can't be in all
points
of the universe simultaneously, but that we are functionally safe in
assuming that they are not true again because of insufficient evidence
and excellent alternate explanations for their assertions.
<very interesting information snipped only for brevity sake>
>
> k
>
Capella
Michelle Malkin
>> The claim you are making is that atheism is the absence of belief in
>> gods, and you are therefore merely changing the definition to your own.
>>
>> If you want to claim that atheism is only the lack of belief in god, you
>> are free to do so, but my original statement that the general definition
>> of atheism as a belief that there is no god is still a belief, and
>> therefore a faith.
>> Not interesting at all, since a lack of a belief is only that, and if you
>> want to claim that atheism is a lack of belief, all my previous comments
>> on that stand. Your personal definition of atheism is not relevant to the
>> position that belief in no god is still belief.
>>
>> I'm not sure what motivates people to want to claim that belief in no god
>> is not faith, but I suspect it is ironically very similar motivation to that
>> which motivates theists to frequently pepper conversations with how "sorry"
>> they are for everyone that doesn't share their beliefs.
>>
>What motivates you to degrade the definition of "faith" with respect ot
>atheism?
>For persons of religious zeal, faith is a positive mental state that
>suspends disbelief in the face of non evidence. Just having confidence
>in the truth or falsity of a proposition (belief) is a completely
>different thing. The confidence can come from evaluation of evidence,
>or by steadfastly ignoring it, or by pure guess. Belief is just the
>working assumptions that your thoughts are based on. Faith is a
>specific subset of belief.
>But I am curious, what is your point in persuing this equating of belief
>and faith? If we all gave up our existing definitions of these words,
>and accepted yours, what would be the outcome? You seem to be saying
>that this is an important point, but I don't see what all the sweat is
>about.
>John Popelish
If we say that we simply don't believe in his 'god', that leaves open the
possibility that his 'god' exists. If we say that we disbelieve in the very
existence of his 'god', we are threatening his personal beliefs. He cannot
accept the fact that we not only don't believe in his personal 'god' but
that we disbelieve in its existence, as well. When we say that we
disbelieve in the existence of his 'god', we are saying that there is not
even an empty space where he places this 'god'. There is simply nothing.
And, you can't believe in nothing or a lack of something. Therefore,
atheism is NOT a religion, because it is a lack of belief not a belief.
Some theists will never understand this because they are totally incapable
of understanding this. Their beliefs limit their understanding outside
their beliefs. They don't even know that their minds are in cages of their
own making.
Michelle Malkin
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
dsg5
> >> The claim you are making is that atheism is the absence of belief in
> >> gods, and you are therefore merely changing the definition to your
own.
> >>
> >> If you want to claim that atheism is only the lack of belief in god,
you
> >> are free to do so, but my original statement that the general
definition
> >> of atheism as a belief that there is no god is still a belief, and
> >> therefore a faith.
>
Um, my kitty cat doesn't beleive in a god. Since she has no beleif, she
qualifies in my book as an atheist. And quite a faithless one at that.
IMHO, atheism is simply the state of being without theistic beleifs.
dsg
G. Marcaigh
j...@mti.net (Joe Long) writes: > On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:39:56 -0700, Gus Smedstad
> <gsme...@interplay.com> wrote:
>
> >On the other hand, I believe that no gods exist. In that regard, my
> >belief is, as you put it, based on faith. I don't have sufficient
> >evidence to say an abstract, impersonal creator does not exist - yet,
> >I'm fairly sure there isn't one. It's like my belief that the Invisible
> >Pink Unicorn does not exist.
Maybe your problem is the understanding of the word believe. Consider
this as an option ... In order to prove there is a god or gods, the onus
is on the theist or believer. They are the ones that assert the existance
of a god without proof.
To have no belief is the default position. You are not obligated to prove
the negative. That argument is used by theists in order to deflect from
the non-provability of their position. Relax and enjoy.
G. Marcaigh
j...@mti.net (Joe Long) writes: > On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 16:09:56 +0000, John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
> It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
> is not based on faith. I think it's often either insecurity, or
> arrogance. An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
> "I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
>
> Joe Long
> jlong at mti dot net (j...@mti.net is my antispam address)
Mr Long, you are a pinhead. You should check the FAQ on atheism. It is not
a faith, but a lack of faith. Those who believe in god are suspending
the faculty of reason in favour of irrational and unprovable faith. Faith
and reason are mutually exclusive terms, regardless of which so-called
great theologians you quote to the contrary.
We have no faith. The onus is on you. Prove to me there is a god. Is that
too much to ask? Quoting the Bible to prove your point is irrelevant. It
is not proof. If the holy books were proof, consider the difficulty with
having to accept the Vedas, the Popul Vuh, The Book of Mormon, the Quran,
the Upshanids, etc, etc. Who is right?
The mystics of the the mind (Rand) have used religion to control society
for centuries. Very seldom have they ever been asked to prove their
assertions. With centuries of time to hone their arguments, you would
think there would be proof.
There is none. Atheism is the default position, not a faith.
Landis D. Ragon
j...@mti.net (Joe Long) wrote:
>
>On 7 Sep 1997 14:14:39 GMT, cjp...@batnet.nospam.com (Jim Sarbeck)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Wrong. The absense of belief in deity is the sole member of the set I call
>>"attitudinal positions of atheism." The rest of the beliefs are *about
>>atheism* and are actually based on observation of people you identify
>>(rightly or wrongly) as atheists. Whether a lack of belief is a belief is
>>an interesting question, I would say by definition it's not. That's why I
>>use the term "attitudinal positions." Some other terms might work as well,
>>but IMO not 'belief'.
>
>Hmm, absence of belief vs. belief in absence. Ok, this is easy to
>determine in your case.
>
>If I ask you the question, "Is there a God?" would you answer:
>
>"Yes." Then you have a belief system based on faith (in God), as
>there is no proof to support your belief.
>
>"I don't know." Then you do not have faith either in God or in the
>absence of God.
>
>"No." If that is your answer, then you have a belief system based on
>faith (that there is no God), as there is no proof to support your
>belief.
>
Well then, bright boy, where would you categorize this response
"I've been shown no convincing evidence that any gods exist and have
seen some evidence that (s)he/they does/do not exist."
Note that the holy book from a particular religion is not evidence of
the existence of a deity, just evidence that someone believes in that
deity or deities.
Landis D. Ragon
Chief Elf in the toy factory...
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 8 Sep 1997 13:10:38 GMT, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart) announced
to all:
>Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
>: Zol...@netcom.ca posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>: > Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
>: >atheism.
>
>: There's only one definition of atheism, however worded, namely:
>
>: "The lack of theism."
>
>
>You don't really have a straight face when you say this, do you?
Yes.
> I'd be hard-pressed to find only "one definition of atheism" like that in
>a mention in a Bazooka Joe comic.
That's your problem
>Silly troller.
Stix is hardly a troller.
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:47:45 GMT, j...@mti.net (Joe Long) announced to all:
>On Sun, 07 Sep 1997 16:09:56 +0000, John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
>wrote:
>
>>What motivates you to degrade the definition of "faith" with respect ot
>>atheism?
>
>Clarifying is not degrading.
>
>>For persons of religious zeal, faith is a positive mental state that
>>suspends disbelief in the face of non evidence. Just having confidence
>>in the truth or falsity of a proposition (belief) is a completely
>>different thing. The confidence can come from evaluation of evidence,
>>or by steadfastly ignoring it, or by pure guess. Belief is just the
>>working assumptions that your thoughts are based on. Faith is a
>>specific subset of belief.
>
>It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
>is not based on faith.
Why? It's a lack of belief based upon reason, lack of evidence, etc.
Where's the faith?
>I think it's often either insecurity, or arrogance.
Strange. We think ass holes who proselytize here are insecure.
> An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
>"I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
But do theists use reason in their belief in god? No.
G. Mark Stewart
Raistlin Majere, Archmage (Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com) wrote:
: On 8 Sep 1997 13:10:38 GMT, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart) announced
: to all:
: >Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: >: Zol...@netcom.ca posted the following to alt.atheism:
: >: > Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
: >: >atheism.
: >: There's only one definition of atheism, however worded, namely:
: >: "The lack of theism."
: >You don't really have a straight face when you say this, do you?
: Yes.
: > I'd be hard-pressed to find only "one definition of atheism" like that in
: >a mention in a Bazooka Joe comic.
: That's your problem
What a wonderful life I have.
: >Silly troller.
: Stix is hardly a troller.
Then that leaves my second choice.
Shell
On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:42:04 GMT, j...@mti.net (Joe Long) wrote:
>Hmm, absence of belief vs. belief in absence. Ok, this is easy to
>determine in your case.
>
>If I ask you the question, "Is there a God?" would you answer:
>
>"Yes." Then you have a belief system based on faith (in God), as
>there is no proof to support your belief.
>
>"I don't know." Then you do not have faith either in God or in the
>absence of God.
>
>"No." If that is your answer, then you have a belief system based on
>faith (that there is no God), as there is no proof to support your
>belief.
How about "I don't see any reason to think so."?
How about "I don't really care."?
How about "I don't like only getting three choices, none of which are
what I would actually say."?
Shell
the faithless
well, mostly
Shell
On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:57:44 GMT, j...@mti.net (Joe Long) wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:39:56 -0700, Gus Smedstad
><gsme...@interplay.com> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, I believe that no gods exist. In that regard, my
>>belief is, as you put it, based on faith. I don't have sufficient
>>evidence to say an abstract, impersonal creator does not exist - yet,
>>I'm fairly sure there isn't one. It's like my belief that the Invisible
>>Pink Unicorn does not exist.
>
>I've got one in my backyard.
Yeah? Provide some evidence. And evidence of its pinkness, too.
Shell
Jim Sarbeck
In article <341450...@Datamatic.com>, Rockett Crawford
<Rockett_...@Datamatic.com> wrote:
: keith green (simctr) wrote:
: > G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
: > : Zol...@netcom.ca wrote:
[...]
: > : : Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
: > : : atheism. When trying to defend their position, they define it as
: > : : a-theism, a non-belief in God, but then once they have finished that
: > : : argument, they exploit the pun and try to maintain that it is reasonable
: > : : to actively assert that the non-existence of God has been proved.
: >
: > [...] Many atheists (and I'm one of them, though
: > by some people's definition I'm an agnostic and not an atheist) feel
: > that in light of there not being any credible evidence to support the
: > existence of any deity, that the most correct course of action for us
: > is to live our lives AS IF none existed.
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls that Practical Atheism.
...
: I have never seen any Atheist on this ng assert what the initial poster
: is claiming we have: "that the non-existence of God has been proved".
Keep watching. I have seen some say Å‚Deity [usually ÅšGodÄ…] does not
existË›, or the equivalent, without supplying proof when asked.
I ascribe to this: Å‚The basic rule of burden of proof in reasonable
dialogue is: He who asserts must prove.Ë› (Douglas N. Walton, Informal
Logic: A handbook of Critical Argumentation, 1989, p. 59). Walton explores
this rule in some detail.
: I don't think most Atheists in this ng will say it is "proven" that any
: of these ridiculous concepts are not true since we can't be in all
: points
: of the universe simultaneously, but that we are functionally safe in
: assuming that they are not true again because of insufficient evidence
: and excellent alternate explanations for their assertions.
If one has already concluded that a concept is *ridiculous*, I donÄ…t see
how one can credibly portray that one is in the modest position of Åšbeing
functionally safe in assumingÄ… it is not true.
In some cases it may be functionally safe to assume unproven assertions
are not true, but it may be safer in other cases to assume they are true.
It depends on the likelihood and cost (expected value) of error.
For example:
You would be well advised to assume your gun is loaded unless proven to be
unloaded, if dealing with a child who wants to play with it. You would
OTOH be well advised to assume your gun is unloaded until you make sure it
is loaded, if a person intent on killing you is about to enter the room.
And of course in reasonable dialogue, we can adopt whatever rule we think
will serve us well.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
David B. Greene
>>On the other hand, I believe that no gods exist. In that regard, my
>>belief is, as you put it, based on faith. I don't have sufficient
>>evidence to say an abstract, impersonal creator does not exist - yet,
>>I'm fairly sure there isn't one. It's like my belief that the Invisible
>>Pink Unicorn does not exist.
>I've got one in my backyard.
That's funny, I've got pink flamingos in mine! Fifties kitsch you kow.
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com wrote:
>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) announced to all:
>>John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote:
>>
>>>What motivates you to degrade the definition of "faith" with respect ot
>>>atheism?
>>
>>Clarifying is not degrading.
>>
>>>For persons of religious zeal, faith is a positive mental state that
>>>suspends disbelief in the face of non evidence. Just having confidence
>>>in the truth or falsity of a proposition (belief) is a completely
>>>different thing. The confidence can come from evaluation of evidence,
>>>or by steadfastly ignoring it, or by pure guess. Belief is just the
>>>working assumptions that your thoughts are based on. Faith is a
>>>specific subset of belief.
>>
>>It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
>>is not based on faith.
> Why? It's a lack of belief based upon reason, lack of evidence, etc.
>Where's the faith?
Obviously in your ability to reason. What makes you think that ability is
not somehow impaired in a manner transparent to you? Is science based upon
reason? Such reasoning about the natural world led ancient philosophers
into many errors. Is modern science more strongly based upon reason or
empiricism?
>>I think it's often either insecurity, or arrogance.
> Strange. We think ass holes who proselytize here are insecure.
You misspelled assholes ...
OTOH, atheist often proselytize as fervently as any religious group.
>> An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
>>"I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
> But do theists use reason in their belief in god? No.
Oh? Upon what holy font of wisdom is that derived from? Reason is but one
tool among many, why should it have the sole billing as the arbiter of
truth? Why can it not be one of the several arrows in the quiver of
religious truth? It is not the only arrow in the quiver of scientific
truth.
Did Kekule use reason to deduce the structure of the Benzene ring?
Dave Greene
David B. Greene
Landis...@ibm.net (Landis D. Ragon) wrote:
>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) wrote:
>>cjp...@batnet.nospam.com (Jim Sarbeck) wrote:
>>
>>>Wrong. The absense of belief in deity is the sole member of the set I call
>>>"attitudinal positions of atheism." The rest of the beliefs are *about
>>>atheism* and are actually based on observation of people you identify
>>>(rightly or wrongly) as atheists. Whether a lack of belief is a belief is
>>>an interesting question, I would say by definition it's not. That's why I
>>>use the term "attitudinal positions." Some other terms might work as well,
>>>but IMO not 'belief'.
>>
>>Hmm, absence of belief vs. belief in absence. Ok, this is easy to
>>determine in your case.
>>
>>If I ask you the question, "Is there a God?" would you answer:
>>
>>"Yes." Then you have a belief system based on faith (in God), as
>>there is no proof to support your belief.
>>
>>"I don't know." Then you do not have faith either in God or in the
>>absence of God.
>>
>>"No." If that is your answer, then you have a belief system based on
>>faith (that there is no God), as there is no proof to support your
>>belief.
>>
>Well then, bright boy, where would you categorize this response
>"I've been shown no convincing evidence that any gods exist and have
>seen some evidence that (s)he/they does/do not exist."
I'd catagorize it as you see what you want to see.
>Note that the holy book from a particular religion is not evidence of
>the existence of a deity, just evidence that someone believes in that
>deity or deities.
Well, if you want to control the definition of evidence ...
>Landis D. Ragon
>Chief Elf in the toy factory...
>In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
>One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
>One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
>In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
It seems funny that rationalist would quote Tolkein which is nothing more
than an appeal to the deep archetypes of transcendent spiritual reality.
Dave Greene
Torkel Franzen
In article <5v2pd7$n...@nntp4.u.washington.edu> da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene) writes:
>It seems funny that rationalist would quote Tolkein which is nothing more
>than an appeal to the deep archetypes of transcendent spiritual reality.
Tolkien, Tolkien, Tolkien. As for archetypes, there is absolutely no
reason why an ardent rationalist shouldn't wallow in archetypes to his
heart's content.
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 05:06:10 GMT, da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene)
announced to all:
>Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com wrote:
>>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) announced to all:
>>>John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What motivates you to degrade the definition of "faith" with respect ot
>>>>atheism?
>>>
>>>Clarifying is not degrading.
>>>
>>>>For persons of religious zeal, faith is a positive mental state that
>>>>suspends disbelief in the face of non evidence. Just having confidence
>>>>in the truth or falsity of a proposition (belief) is a completely
>>>>different thing. The confidence can come from evaluation of evidence,
>>>>or by steadfastly ignoring it, or by pure guess. Belief is just the
>>>>working assumptions that your thoughts are based on. Faith is a
>>>>specific subset of belief.
>>>
>>>It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
>>>is not based on faith.
>
>> Why? It's a lack of belief based upon reason, lack of evidence, etc.
>>Where's the faith?
>
>Obviously in your ability to reason.
Faith and reason are enemies.
> What makes you think that ability is not somehow impaired in a manner transparent to you?
Reason is not flawed.
> Is science based upon reason? Such reasoning about the natural world led ancient philosophers
>into many errors.
Whom?
> Is modern science more strongly based upon reason or
>empiricism?
See below for the answer.
>
>>>I think it's often either insecurity, or arrogance.
>
>> Strange. We think ass holes who proselytize here are insecure.
>
>You misspelled assholes ...
Accidentally hit "change" when Agent lit up "assholes". Need to add it to
the dictionary.
>OTOH, atheist often proselytize as fervently as any religious group.
Nope. We just fight back.
>
>>> An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
>>>"I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
>
>> But do theists use reason in their belief in god? No.
>
>Oh? Upon what holy font of wisdom is that derived from? Reason is but one
>tool among many
No. Reason is the toolbox. It is all we have.
Reason is our means of combining our sensory data into concepts. It's the
only means we have of dealing with reality.
>, why should it have the sole billing as the arbiter of truth?
Because it is the only one.
> Why can it not be one of the several arrows in the quiver of
>religious truth? It is not the only arrow in the quiver of scientific
>truth.
Actually, it is. Unless you want to get mired in the reason/empiracism
debate, which is rather pre-Aristotle.
>Did Kekule use reason to deduce the structure of the Benzene ring?
Did you have a point?
Jim Sarbeck
In article <5v2pco$n...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, da...@antispam.halcyon.com
wrote:
: Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com wrote:
: >j...@mti.net (Joe Long) announced to all:
: >>It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
: >>is not based on faith.
:
: > Why? It's a lack of belief based upon reason, lack of evidence, etc.
: >Where's the faith?
:
: Obviously in your ability to reason. What makes you think that ability is
: not somehow impaired in a manner transparent to you? Is science based upon
: reason? Such reasoning about the natural world led ancient philosophers
: into many errors. Is modern science more strongly based upon reason or
: empiricism?
:
: >>I think it's often either insecurity, or arrogance.
What motivates those who assert that atheism is faith do do so? I suppose
that if atheists admit that atheism is a faith they have to stop
denigrating faith, is that it? Well, I think atheists should stop
denigrating faith anyway, and I'm one. Of course I my atheism is a matter
of faith, so I can't speak for those who assert theirs is not. For all I
know, they are accurately reporting their mental state. How would you know
differently?
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Rockett Crawford
Jim Sarbeck wrote:
>
> In article <341450...@Datamatic.com>, Rockett Crawford
> <Rockett_...@Datamatic.com> wrote:
> : I have never seen any Atheist on this ng assert what the initial poster
> : is claiming we have: "that the non-existence of God has been proved".
>
> Keep watching. I have seen some say Å‚Deity [usually ÅšGodÄ…] does not
> existË›, or the equivalent, without supplying proof when asked.
Again, it is as safe to say that a omnipotent omniscent invisible being
*did not* poof out of nowhere to create the universe as to say that
pixies are not living in our closets, etc...
These Incredible claims that have much more probable alternate
explanations like christianity can't be completely ignored but
need not be taken too seriously.
>
> I ascribe to this: Å‚The basic rule of burden of proof in reasonable
> dialogue is: He who asserts must prove.Ë› (Douglas N. Walton, Informal
> Logic: A handbook of Critical Argumentation, 1989, p. 59). Walton explores
> this rule in some detail.
Let's have it then.
>
> : I don't think most Atheists in this ng will say it is "proven" that any
> : of these ridiculous concepts are not true since we can't be in all
> : points
> : of the universe simultaneously, but that we are functionally safe in
> : assuming that they are not true again because of insufficient evidence
> : and excellent alternate explanations for their assertions.
>
> If one has already concluded that a concept is *ridiculous*, I donÄ…t see
> how one can credibly portray that one is in the modest position of Åšbeing
> functionally safe in assumingÄ… it is not true.
>
> In some cases it may be functionally safe to assume unproven assertions
> are not true, but it may be safer in other cases to assume they are true.
> It depends on the likelihood and cost (expected value) of error.
The likelihood of Yahweh and Jesus existing as gods is negligible as is
the existence of other religious deities, fairies (popular in the early
part of this century) UFOs, Angels, etc...
The alternate explanations are far more likely that people want to
believe something parental or superior is watching over them, concerned
with their day to day lives. This is a normal psychological need.
>
> For example:
>
> You would be well advised to assume your gun is loaded unless proven to be
> unloaded, if dealing with a child who wants to play with it. You would
> OTOH be well advised to assume your gun is unloaded until you make sure it
> is loaded, if a person intent on killing you is about to enter the room.
>
> And of course in reasonable dialogue, we can adopt whatever rule we think
> will serve us well.
As you have done. Whether a gun is loaded or not is easily proven in the
real world and has no basis for comparison with whether invisible,
supernatural parental-like beings that people wish for exist or not.
It seems that your gun analogy may be a watered down version of Pascal's
Wager which is a logical fallacy blown to pieces countless times in this
ng. If you want to hear it again, here it goes:
If a person needs to fear that your particular religion is correct then
they need to be equally afraid of all the many other vastly different
religions in the world being correct also. QED...
>
> Regards,
> Jim Sarbeck
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ross Williams
G. Marcaigh <ra...@ica.net> writes:
> j...@mti.net (Joe Long) writes: > On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 12:39:56 -0700, Gus Smedstad
> > <gsme...@interplay.com> wrote:
> > >On the other hand, I believe that no gods exist. In that regard, my
> > >belief is, as you put it, based on faith. I don't have sufficient
> > >evidence to say an abstract, impersonal creator does not exist - yet,
> > >I'm fairly sure there isn't one. It's like my belief that the Invisible
> > >Pink Unicorn does not exist.
> this as an option ... In order to prove there is a god or gods, the onus
> is on the theist or believer. They are the ones that assert the existance
> of a god without proof.
>
> To have no belief is the default position. You are not obligated to prove
> the negative. That argument is used by theists in order to deflect from
> the non-provability of their position. Relax and enjoy.
God is a non-provable entity. Sorry. The belief in it, whether ultimately
true or false in an empirical sense, is decided because the Believer
believes. Like any psychosis, from believing the world is out to get you,
or the pink unicorn, or Elvis' emergence as a busboy in a Waffle House in
Parmalee Minnesota, or the Braves are the best baseball team, or that ones'
wife is the prettiest, or ones' children the smartest, all are made
manifest simply by the believing.
One cannot measure these manifestations, but yet they are real, and you
are not going to make any mileage in trying to convince the Believer
that his beliefs are false.
What *is* provable, however, is that nonbelief "is the default position".
Please substantiate this assertion, or chalk it up to a non-provable
religious epiphany of your own and let us mock you for being an illogical
dweeb.
Write your proof in the space provided below:
Thank you. Call again.
Ross Williams
Landis shows he doesn't get it:
>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) wrote:
>>On 7 Sep 1997 14:14:39 GMT, cjp...@batnet.nospam.com
(Jim Sarbeck) wrote:
>>>Wrong. The absense of belief in deity is the sole member of
the set I call
>>>"attitudinal positions of atheism." The rest of the beliefs are *about
>>>atheism* and are actually based on observation of people you identify
>>>(rightly or wrongly) as atheists. Whether a lack of belief is a belief is
>>>an interesting question, I would say by definition it's not. That's why I
>>>use the term "attitudinal positions." Some other terms might work as well,
>>>but IMO not 'belief'.
>>Hmm, absence of belief vs. belief in absence. Ok, this is easy to
>>determine in your case.
>>
>>If I ask you the question, "Is there a God?" would you answer:
>>
>>"Yes." Then you have a belief system based on faith (in God), as
>>there is no proof to support your belief.
>>
>>"I don't know." Then you do not have faith either in God or in the
>>absence of God.
>>
>>"No." If that is your answer, then you have a belief system based on
>>faith (that there is no God), as there is no proof to support your
>>belief.
>
>Well then, bright boy, where would you categorize this
>response
>
>"I've been shown no convincing evidence that any gods exist and have
>seen some evidence that (s)he/they does/do not exist."
Write up that evidence for the nonexistence of God, showing
repeatable and verifiable empiricism, present it at the
symposium and allow the scientific world to bless -- if you'll
pardon -- your findings.
>Note that the holy book from a particular religion is not evidence of
>the existence of a deity, just evidence that someone believes in that
>deity or deities.
Noted.
Also noted is that the "evidence" of nonexistance of God,
written up and bound in a slick 64-color format, is simply
evidence that someone believes said diety or deities do *not*
exist.
Sorry.
You cannot prove that something unprovable doesn't exist any
more than you can prove it does. It relies on belief either way.
Ross Williams
Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage) writes: >
> On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 05:06:10 GMT, da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene)
> announced to all:
> >>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) announced to all:
> >>>It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
> >>>is not based on faith.
> >> Why? It's a lack of belief based upon reason, lack of evidence, etc.
> >>Where's the faith?
> >Obviously in your ability to reason.
Tell Copernicus. Tell Mendel.
> > What makes you think that ability is not somehow impaired in a manner transparent to you?
> Reason is not flawed.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
Right?
> > Is science based upon reason? Such reasoning about the natural world led ancient philosophers
> >into many errors.
>
> Whom?
"Whose", you mean. Yours, for starters. Just about every other empiricist
going or gone; every single Rationalist, which you are lining up to be.
> > Is modern science more strongly based upon reason or
> >empiricism?
>
> See below for the answer.
Pulling an answer out of your butt?
> >OTOH, atheist often proselytize as fervently as any religious group.
>
> Nope. We just fight back.
Conversion by force is at least one degree worse than proselytizing.
> >> But do theists use reason in their belief in god? No.
> >Oh? Upon what holy font of wisdom is that derived from? Reason is but one
> >tool among many
>
> No. Reason is the toolbox. It is all we have.
"All"? What manner of logic justifies the use of categoricals?
> Reason is our means of combining our sensory data into concepts. It's the
> only means we have of dealing with reality.
"Only"? You're mighty cocksure, aren't you?
> >, why should it have the sole billing as the arbiter of truth?
>
> Because it is the only one.
Again with the absolutisms.
One shred of evidence to the contrary and your entire argument is shot,
you realize.
> > Why can it not be one of the several arrows in the quiver of
> >religious truth? It is not the only arrow in the quiver of scientific
> >truth.
>
> Actually, it is. Unless you want to get mired in the reason/empiracism
> debate, which is rather pre-Aristotle.
And how did Aristotle fare?
Ross Williams
Mome Wrath outgrabed as follows:
>On Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:42:04 GMT, j...@mti.net (Joe Long) wrote:
>>If I ask you the question, "Is there a God?" would you answer:
>>
>>"Yes." Then you have a belief system based on faith (in God), as
>>there is no proof to support your belief.
>>
>>"I don't know." Then you do not have faith either in God or in the
>>absence of God.
>>
>>"No." If that is your answer, then you have a belief system based on
>>faith (that there is no God), as there is no proof to support your
>>belief.
>
Countered by "I don't see any reason to *not* think so." Which
devolves into a matter of opinion, not provable either way and
totally reliant upon belief. Point: Joe.
>How about "I don't really care."?
Lack of interest in the answer does not address the question.
No points awarded.
>How about "I don't like only getting three choices, none of
>which are what I would actually say."?
Interesting.
Last year's World Series was betweeen the Yankees and the
Braves. Either the Yankees were going to win, or else the
Braves were. There were those on both sides who believed
strenuously in one team or the other. Then there were those
who sincerely didn't care -- which did not affect the outcome
one iota. There were also those who didn't know; the Series
Agnostics, if you will.
I never thought there'd be anyone who'd have thought the Cubs
could come from nowhere and taken the Series away from them
both.
God exists, by one fall.
George Ricker
> George Ricker (gri...@iu.net) wrote:
> : In article <5uorvc$7i7$4...@brownfox.svs.com>, gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark
> : Stewart) wrote:
Apologies for being slow with this. My ISP had trouble with the news server
(again). I retrieved G. Mark Stewart's response from Deja News
I wrote:
> : The point is that there is no "atheist belief system" not that atheists
> : have no beliefs. Consider the opposite position. Theists are people who
> : believe in a god or gods. Beyond that statement of belief, can you describe
> : for us a "theist belief system" that will be valid for all theists? I
> : sincerely doubt it. Once you get beyond that simple statement of belief,
> : the potential variations become virtually unlimited.
He responded:
> What have you decided is the difference between "a set of beliefs"
> and "a belief system"? And then how does that disprove my point that
> athesists have faith?
Go back and read it again. I said atheists may have beliefs but that there
is no "atheist belief system." I have no idea whether "athesists" have
faith or not :-). Whether or not atheists do probably depends on how one
defines the word "faith." I wrote a rather lengthy piece on that subject
two years ago (I reposted it as "Faith Again" a while back. I think it's
still archived on Deja News if you want to have a look), and there have
been all sorts of threads on this newsgroup trying to pin down exactly what
the term "faith" means and how it is applicable to atheism (if at all).
Frankly most of them have been a waste of time and bandwidth. I don't
propose to waste more on it. I was responding to the proposition that
atheism is a "belief system." It isn't.
I wrote:
> : By the same token, the atheist lacks belief in a god or gods. But beyond
> : that lack of belief, there is no standard set of atheist beliefs. Atheism
> : provides the starting point from which one's philosophy may be constructed,
> : but atheism does not, in and of itself, provide that philosophy.
He responded:
> The belief that there is no god seems to be a pretty standard atheist
> set of beliefs.
Taking last things first, "the belief that there is no god" is a single
belief not a "set of beliefs." Taking first things last, the statement "I
don't believe in god(s)" is a pretty standard atheist response to the
god(s)/no god(s) question. It's not a statement of belief. It's an
expression of the lack thereof. The statement "there is no god" or (as I
would put it) "there are no gods" is a pretty standard expression of
"strong atheism." Whether or not strong atheists hold their point of view
as a matter of faith is certainly an arguable proposition. Again, it
depends partly on how one defines the word "faith." I've seen at least one
strong atheist on this newsgroup who says it is a matter of faith. Others
disagree. However, I think there is a fundamental difference in the use of
the word "faith" in this context and the way it is used in a religious
context. Besides, while it is true that all strong atheists are atheists,
it is not true that all atheists are strong atheists.
I wrote:
> : Certainly, it can be useful to study the past lives of atheists and the
> : history of freethought in general. But the notion that there is some sort
> : of "historical tradition" that binds all atheists to a particular point of
> : view is just as erroneous as the notion that all theists are Christians or
> : even that they all are monotheists.
He responded:
> So what is the significance of "a historical tradition"? And what would
> such constitute? A religion? And what does that claim support?
I was responding to another poster's statement (David B. Greene
(da...@antispam.halcyon.com)) that "There is a lot of tradition and history
that has shaped the atheist belief system." As to the rest of your
comments, I have no idea what you are talking about. I made no claim about
a "historical tradition" except to say that whatever tradition may exist
does not "bind all atheists to a particular point of view." Is there
something about that you don't understand?
> GMS
> http://www.svs.com/users/gmark
(To GMS: if you want to continue this, it might expedite things if you
email me a copy of your response. The news server my ISP uses seems to
develop periodic cases of the yips. As I noted at the beginning, I
retrieved your post from Deja News.)
--
George Ricker
"Theology is not what we know about God,
but what we do not know about Nature."
Robert G. Ingersoll - "Some Mistakes of Moses"
Ross Williams
Unless, of course, that Rationalist might want something that could be
measured. Archtype descriptions are metaphoric nonsense. Much in the
same way religion is ... to the nonbeliever in it.
Dave gets the point, here. It is funny.
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 9 Sep 1997 23:45:15 GMT, Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> announced to
all:
>
>Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage) writes: >
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 1997 05:06:10 GMT, da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene)
>> announced to all:
>> >Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com wrote:
>> >>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) announced to all:
>> >>>It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
>> >>>is not based on faith.
>> >> Why? It's a lack of belief based upon reason, lack of evidence, etc.
>> >>Where's the faith?
>> >Obviously in your ability to reason.
>> Faith and reason are enemies.
>
>Tell Copernicus. Tell Mendel.
And your point is.....what?
>
>> > What makes you think that ability is not somehow impaired in a manner transparent to you?
>> Reason is not flawed.
>
>Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
>
>Right?
Wrong. Humans kill humans. The tools used are neither good nor bad.
Bet you thought you would win that one, didn't you?
>
>> > Is science based upon reason? Such reasoning about the natural world led ancient philosophers
>> >into many errors.
>>
>> Whom?
>
>"Whose", you mean.
No. I mean "whom". Who were the philosophers.
> Yours, for starters. Just about every other empiricist
>going or gone; every single Rationalist, which you are lining up to be.
I'm an Objectivist, for the most part.
>
>> > Is modern science more strongly based upon reason or
>> >empiricism?
>>
>> See below for the answer.
>
>Pulling an answer out of your butt?
No.
>
>> >OTOH, atheist often proselytize as fervently as any religious group.
>>
>> Nope. We just fight back.
>
>Conversion by force is at least one degree worse than proselytizing.
By force?
Where, when, by whom and who was converted?
I was speaking of not taking the theist's shit when they claim that
atheism is immoral and all that. That sort of fighting back. Shoving the burden
of proof back where it belongs--on the theist.
>
>> >> But do theists use reason in their belief in god? No.
>> >Oh? Upon what holy font of wisdom is that derived from? Reason is but one
>> >tool among many
>>
>> No. Reason is the toolbox. It is all we have.
>
>"All"? What manner of logic justifies the use of categoricals?
Reality, which is an absolute.
>
>> Reason is our means of combining our sensory data into concepts. It's the
>> only means we have of dealing with reality.
>
>"Only"? You're mighty cocksure, aren't you?
Damn straight.
>
>> >, why should it have the sole billing as the arbiter of truth?
>>
>> Because it is the only one.
>
>Again with the absolutisms.
Of course. There are such things as absolutes. The statement "There is no
such thing as an absolute" is itself an absolute, and hence self-contradictory.
>One shred of evidence to the contrary and your entire argument is shot,
>you realize.
Then provide the evidence. Be warned: no one ever has been able to.
>
>> > Why can it not be one of the several arrows in the quiver of
>> >religious truth? It is not the only arrow in the quiver of scientific
>> >truth.
>>
>> Actually, it is. Unless you want to get mired in the reason/empiracism
>> debate, which is rather pre-Aristotle.
>
>And how did Aristotle fare?
Very well, actually. Aristotle got many things correct. Unlike you.
Torkel Franzen
Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> writes:
>Unless, of course, that Rationalist might want something that could be
>measured. Archtype descriptions are metaphoric nonsense.
There is no reason whatsoever why an ardent rationalist should not
be an equally ardent devotee of metaphoric nonsense.
Robert Wiegand
Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> writes:
>>How about "I don't see any reason to think so."?
>Countered by "I don't see any reason to *not* think so." Which
>devolves into a matter of opinion, not provable either way and
>totally reliant upon belief. Point: Joe.
Sorry, but I have to take that point away. If there is no proof either
way then "I don't see any reason to think so." is the more reasonable
position. Otherwise you would have to also believe in an infinite
number of things that have never been proven to not exist (such as
ghosts, vampires, leprecauns and anything else someone could think up).
You would be an easy mark for any con man that came along.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Wiegand | Remove the "$" from my e-mail address before replying.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The angry people are those people who are most afraid. - Dr. Robert Anthony
Paul G. Wenthold
Ross Williams wrote:
>
> What *is* provable, however, is that nonbelief "is the default position".
>
> Please substantiate this assertion, or chalk it up to a non-provable
> religious epiphany of your own and let us mock you for being an illogical
> dweeb.
>
> Write your proof in the space provided below:
>
It is easily demonstrated that a default position of non-belief is
the only rational position. There are an infinite number of beings
or events that have no evidence supporting their existence. A few
examples:
god
invisible unicorns orbiting pluto
elves that float directly behind you at all times
etc
Given that all these have exactly the same evidence for
their existence (ie none), we cannot rationally pick or chose
any to believe in to the exclusion of others. If you do this,
it must be chosen willy-nilly. A rational approach (given
the evidence for all is the same) is to treat them in all the
same manner, either belief or non-belief. However, if you chose
belief, then you are required to believe in all possible events
that have no evidence for them. This includes the possibilities
above, and other bizarre things such as your wife is the anti-christ
as described in Revelations and that all your family members
are serial killers. You also must believe in contradictory statements,
such as "person X in Great Britain whom you do not know is a serial
killer _and_ person X is a great humanitarian who wouldn't hurt a
flea." You have exactly the same evidence that both of these
possibilities are true. If you chose to believe everything
for which there is no evidence, your belief involves a logical
contradiction. If your default position is dis-belief, you do
not believe that your wife is the anti-christ, your family are serial
killers, and person X is not both a killer and a humanitarian (actually,
this is the case for _all_ people that you don't know).
Therefore, it is only logical to select a position of non-belief.
paul
Rockett Crawford
Paul G. Wenthold wrote:
>
> Ross Williams wrote:
> >
> > What *is* provable, however, is that nonbelief "is the default position".
> >
> > Please substantiate this assertion, or chalk it up to a non-provable
> > religious epiphany of your own and let us mock you for being an illogical
> > dweeb.
> >
> > Write your proof in the space provided below:
> >
>
> It is easily demonstrated that a default position of non-belief is
> the only rational position. There are an infinite number of beings
> or events that have no evidence supporting their existence. A few
> examples:
>
> god
> invisible unicorns orbiting pluto
> elves that float directly behind you at all times
> etc
These are great comparison concepts. Elves that float directly behind
your head so that no matter what direction you turn your head to they
are exactly behind it. Of course they can't be seen in mirrors or
photographed either.
:^)
Unicorns orbiting pluto is good too.
Excellent concepts and I agree that the Christian concepts are about
as credible.
Capella #5
> paul
Jim Sarbeck
In article <341826...@geocities.com>, vani...@geocities.com wrote:
: G. Mark Stewart wrote:
: >
: > Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: > : Zol...@netcom.ca posted the following to alt.atheism:
: >
: > : > Atheists love to dance around between the two different
definitions of
: > : >atheism.
: >
: > : There's only one definition of atheism, however worded, namely:
: >
: > : "The lack of theism."
: >
: > You don't really have a straight face when you say this, do you? I'd
: > be hard-pressed to find only "one definition of atheism" like that in
: > a mention in a Bazooka Joe comic.
:
: Actually, that is the only quality that unites all atheists. So, if you
: are asking whether or not we have a straight face when we say that, we
: at least are trying to be intelectually honest with you, unlike many
: other people who try to promote their idol-worship on this NG.
Both the Oxford and Cambridge reference books on philosophy define atheism
as the doctrine that there is no God. [capital G]. The American Heritage
Dictionary says:
"1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The
doctrine that there is no God or gods."
Disbelief and denial refer to two kinds of atheism, characterized in the
alt.atheism faq and in other places as weak and strong atheism. Both kinds
are represented on this NG, and I suspect a careful analysis would by some
measures show that of these two kinds, the NG is dominated by the stronger
version. I do not believe it is truly reflective of the character of these
two kinds of atheism as seen on this NG to subsume one under the other,
and that may be why intellectual honesty is questionable on this point.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 10 Sep 1997 17:09:44 GMT, gt1...@acmey.gatech.edu (Delphin) announced to
all:
>Atheist - one who believes that there is no God
atheist: one who lacks belief in a god or gods.
>Agnostic - one who believes that the existance or nonexistance of God is
>unknown (and possibly unknowable)
Making the person an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is orthogonal to
atheism and theism.
Ross Williams
Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage) writes:
> On 9 Sep 1997 23:45:15 GMT, Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> announced to
> all:
> >Tell Copernicus. Tell Mendel.
>
> And your point is.....what?
Oh, gee, I dunno. Catholic monks and bishops tend to have scads of
'faith' hanging around, is all. Yet it is upon their works which a
huge part of astronomy and genetics is based.
You might want to ask Darwin, also, about this little unsubstantiated
assertion of yours.
> >> Reason is not flawed.
> >Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
> >
> >Right?
>
> Wrong. Humans kill humans. The tools used are neither good nor bad.
>
> Bet you thought you would win that one, didn't you?
I just did.
"The tools we use are neither good nor bad".
> >> > Is science based upon reason? Such reasoning about the natural world led ancient philosophers
> >> >into many errors.
> >>
> >> Whom?
> >
> >"Whose", you mean.
>
> No. I mean "whom". Who were the philosophers.
Don't you mean "whom were the philosophers" then? Consistency, Mr Archmage,
is the backbone of reason. You're failing conspicuously.
> > Yours, for starters. Just about every other empiricist
> >going or gone; every single Rationalist, which you are lining up to be.
>
> I'm an Objectivist, for the most part.
Jesus christ! "If I can't touch it, it doesn't exist." There goes the
nebulous realm of 'idea', 'thought', 'imagination', and 'humor'.
> >> See below for the answer.
> >Pulling an answer out of your butt?
>
> No.
No sense of the absurd, either. Can't touch it. Nonexistent. Randian
boobs are some of the most humorless people going.
> >> Nope. We just fight back.
> >Conversion by force is at least one degree worse than proselytizing.
>
> By force?
>
> Where, when, by whom and who was converted?
You want the sociologic view on that?
> I was speaking of not taking the theist's shit when they claim that
> atheism is immoral and all that. That sort of fighting back. Shoving the burden
> of proof back where it belongs--on the theist.
Ever think ... silly opening of a question for you; of *course* you don't:
you're a Randian.
Ever think that theists' shit is simply them refusing to take your shit
when you assert that religion is the absence of reason and religionists
are necessarily irrational? that they could be shoving the burden of
proof back on *you*?
Silly question after all: of *course* you don't think that, because you,
in your "objectivist" "reason" are being purely subjective and irrational
yourself.
> >> No. Reason is the toolbox. It is all we have.
> >"All"? What manner of logic justifies the use of categoricals?
>
> Reality, which is an absolute.
So. You can empirically extrapolate my reality. From what, pray tell?
You can also empirically extrapolate the Pope's reality, or Betty Goodwin's?
You must be some ass-kickin' mage, there, son. Are you God?
> >"Only"? You're mighty cocksure, aren't you?
>
> Damn straight.
"Positive, adj., Mistaken at the top of one's lungs."
> >> Because it is the only one.
> >Again with the absolutisms.
>
> Of course. There are such things as absolutes. The statement "There is no
> such thing as an absolute" is itself an absolute, and hence self-contradictory.
"Down with categorical imperative!!"
These are deliberate paradoxes, dinkus. You have been led into a
philosophical labyrinth by punsters. No wonder you're confused.
> >One shred of evidence to the contrary and your entire argument is shot,
> >you realize.
>
> Then provide the evidence. Be warned: no one ever has been able to.
Mendel, Copernicus, Darwin.
Be advised: you are a doofus who has been arguing against kindergarteners.
> >> Actually, it is. Unless you want to get mired in the reason/empiracism
> >> debate, which is rather pre-Aristotle.
> >
> >And how did Aristotle fare?
>
> Very well, actually. Aristotle got many things correct. Unlike you.
Uh huh.
"Even an idiot must now and again, by chance, be correct."
Whose test sheet did he copy from?
Tom Scheeler
>>> Is science based upon reason? Such reasoning about the natural world
led ancient philosophers
>>> >into many errors.
Are you not confusing "reasoning" with "speculation"? Prior to the
development of the scientific method and better tools of measurement,
speculation had to fill in the missing spaces. It is speculation that
permeates religion, though in a much higher ration to facts.
Tom
Jim Sarbeck
In article <3416D0...@ttacs.ttu.edu>, "Paul G. Wenthold"
<qe...@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
: Ross Williams wrote:
: >
: > What *is* provable, however, is that nonbelief "is the default position".
: >
: > Please substantiate this assertion, or chalk it up to a non-provable
: > religious epiphany of your own and let us mock you for being an illogical
: > dweeb.
: >
: > Write your proof in the space provided below:
: >
:
: It is easily demonstrated that a default position of non-belief is
: the only rational position. There are an infinite number of beings
: or events that have no evidence supporting their existence. A few
: examples:
:
: god
: invisible unicorns orbiting pluto
: elves that float directly behind you at all times
: etc
While it may be one's adopted default position for belief, that does not
make it a 'default position' for rational argumentation, or relieve a
claimant of burden of proof. Better rules for burden of proof in rational
argumentation are: first claimant has first burden of proof, and a
stronger claim carries a stronger burden of proof (Watson, Informal Logic,
1989).
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ross Williams
.. so long as that ardent rationalist is not also an atheist.
Then it would be the epitome of contradiction.
He would have to turn in his International Brotherhood of Rationalists
membership card.
Van Isaac Anderson
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
>
> Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> : Zol...@netcom.ca posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> : > Atheists love to dance around between the two different definitions of
> : >atheism.
>
> : There's only one definition of atheism, however worded, namely:
>
> : "The lack of theism."
>
> You don't really have a straight face when you say this, do you? I'd
> be hard-pressed to find only "one definition of atheism" like that in
> a mention in a Bazooka Joe comic.
Actually, that is the only quality that unites all atheists. So, if you
are asking whether or not we have a straight face when we say that, we
at least are trying to be intelectually honest with you, unlike many
other people who try to promote their idol-worship on this NG.
--
Van Isaac Anderson alt.atheist #716
mailto:vani...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/8250/mtime.htm
"I know of no better goal in life than to perish in attempting the great
and the impossible." - FNietzsche
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 10 Sep 1997 22:05:55 GMT, Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> announced
to all:
>Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage) writes:
>> On 9 Sep 1997 23:45:15 GMT, Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> announced to
>> all:
>> >> Faith and reason are enemies.
>> >Tell Copernicus. Tell Mendel.
>>
>> And your point is.....what?
>
>Oh, gee, I dunno. Catholic monks and bishops tend to have scads of
>'faith' hanging around, is all. Yet it is upon their works which a
>huge part of astronomy and genetics is based.
And what did faith have to do with it?
>You might want to ask Darwin, also, about this little unsubstantiated
>assertion of yours.
Unsubstantiated? Try reading George H.Smith's _Atheism: The Case Against
God_. Try realizing that faith in the context of religion is belief without
evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. IOW, irrational. No reason.
>
>> >> Reason is not flawed.
>> >Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
>> >
>> >Right?
>>
>> Wrong. Humans kill humans. The tools used are neither good nor bad.
>>
>> Bet you thought you would win that one, didn't you?
>
>I just did.
Prove it.
>"The tools we use are neither good nor bad".
Correct.
>
>> >> > Is science based upon reason? Such reasoning about the natural world led ancient philosophers
>> >> >into many errors.
>> >>
>> >> Whom?
>> >
>> >"Whose", you mean.
>>
>> No. I mean "whom". Who were the philosophers.
>
>Don't you mean "whom were the philosophers" then?
No. That would not be grammatically correct.
> Consistency, Mr Archmage, is the backbone of reason. You're failing conspicuously.
You've forgotten the rules of grammar.
>
>> > Yours, for starters. Just about every other empiricist
>> >going or gone; every single Rationalist, which you are lining up to be.
>>
>> I'm an Objectivist, for the most part.
>
>Jesus christ! "If I can't touch it, it doesn't exist."
No. That would be a "strawman".
> There goes the nebulous realm of 'idea', 'thought', 'imagination', and 'humor'.
Do you know how to use anything other than logical fallacies?
>
>> >> See below for the answer.
>> >Pulling an answer out of your butt?
>>
>> No.
>
>No sense of the absurd, either. Can't touch it. Nonexistent. Randian
>boobs are some of the most humorless people going.
Strawman. How pathetic.
>
>> >> Nope. We just fight back.
>> >Conversion by force is at least one degree worse than proselytizing.
>>
>> By force?
>>
>> Where, when, by whom and who was converted?
>
>You want the sociologic view on that?
I want proof, asshole. You claimed it. Now prove it. Or retract your
claim.
>
>> I was speaking of not taking the theist's shit when they claim that
>> atheism is immoral and all that. That sort of fighting back. Shoving the burden
>> of proof back where it belongs--on the theist.
>
>Ever think ... silly opening of a question for you; of *course* you don't:
>you're a Randian.
ad hominem fallacy. Pathetic.
>>Ever think that theists' shit is simply them refusing to take your shit
>when you assert that religion is the absence of reason and religionists
>are necessarily irrational? that they could be shoving the burden of
>proof back on *you*?
Then that would be the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Theists are the positive claimants. They have the burden of proof. RTFFAQ.
>Silly question after all: of *course* you don't think that, because you,
>in your "objectivist" "reason" are being purely subjective and irrational
>yourself.
ad hominem fallacy.
You really have no clue, do you?
>
>> >> No. Reason is the toolbox. It is all we have.
>> >"All"? What manner of logic justifies the use of categoricals?
>>
>> Reality, which is an absolute.
>
>So. You can empirically extrapolate my reality. From what, pray tell?
Reality. DUH!
>You can also empirically extrapolate the Pope's reality, or Betty Goodwin's?
>
>You must be some ass-kickin' mage, there, son. Are you God?
There's no such thing.
>
>> >"Only"? You're mighty cocksure, aren't you?
>>
>> Damn straight.
>
>"Positive, adj., Mistaken at the top of one's lungs."
Stupid: adj; Thinking that reason is flawed.
>
>> >> Because it is the only one.
>> >Again with the absolutisms.
>>
>> Of course. There are such things as absolutes. The statement "There is no
>> such thing as an absolute" is itself an absolute, and hence self-contradictory.
>
>"Down with categorical imperative!!"
>
>These are deliberate paradoxes, dinkus. You have been led into a
>philosophical labyrinth by punsters. No wonder you're confused.
So show me the error in that statement. Put up or shut up.
>
>> >One shred of evidence to the contrary and your entire argument is shot,
>> >you realize.
>>
>> Then provide the evidence. Be warned: no one ever has been able to.
>
>Mendel, Copernicus, Darwin.
<still waiting>
What do they have to do with anything?
Keith A. Schneider
"dsg5" <ds...@flash.net> writes:
>IMHO, atheism is simply the state of being without theistic beleifs.
That is a fairly modern and narrow definition... There are several
somewhat different definitions of atheism that one will find through a
perusal of reference and other works on the subject. Here is a
sampling of a number of definitions.
First, from the dictionaries:
From the OED:
atheism: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
_Also,_ disregard of duty to God, godlessness
(_practical_ atheism).
atheist: 1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God.
2. One who practically denies or disbelieves the
existence of God by disregard of moral obligation to
Him; a godless man.
Websters:
atheism
1a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
1b: the doctrine that there is no deity
2: UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
[It should be noted that definition 2 corresponds closely to the
original Greek usage of _atheos_.]
atheist: one who denies the existence of God
Now, from dictionaries of philosophy:
From _A Dictionary of Philosophy_ (2nd ed.) by Anthony Flew:
atheism. The rejection of belief in God, whether on the grounds
that it is meaningful but false to say that God exists, or, as the
logical positivists held, that it is meaningless and hence neither
true nor false. It can be said with some point that atheism
exists only in relation to some conception of deity, . . ., and
that 'God' covers so many different conceptions, from crude
anthropomorphism to sophisticated ideas of an Infinite Substance
or Ground of all Being, that everyone is perforce an atheist in
relation to some of them. However, the label 'atheist' is
ordinarily, though probably not invariable, applied without
qualification only to someone who denies God in any of the senses
that current uses of the term allow.
From _The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy_:
atheism. The view that there are no gods. A widely used sense
denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with
agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no
God; this use has become the standard one.
From _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_:
atheism. . . Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no
God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these
arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of
God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much
Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the
Christian God does not exist.
Now some encyclopedia entries:
From Britannica:
. . . Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes
that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more
adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex
claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in
God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on
how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the
atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably
false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God
of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief
in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless,
unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent;
for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians
or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of
God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic
substance--e.g., "God" is just another name for love, or "God" is
simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.
Encyclopedia Americana, 1989
ATHEISM, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from
greek _theos_, "God") is belief in or conceptualization of God;
atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.
The meaning of atheism, then, depends upon the theism that is
being denied. Hence the word has been used traditionally in at
least three ways. (1) Most precisely, atheism is the denial that
there is any being or power deserving the name of God or the
reverence accorded to God. (2) Frequently, atheism is the name
applied to any conviction that rejects the prevailing beliefs in
the God or gods of a given culture. (3) Sometimes atheism refers
simply to the practical rejections or ignoring of God.
Because the word is often used in arguments or accusation, the
three meanings are frequently confused. . . . The essential
factor in atheism is some element of denial or rejection, not
simply the skepticism or doubt known as agnosticism.
Collier's Encyclopedia, 1984, Vol. 3:
Atheism, a term indicating disbelief in a supreme being, from the
Greek [...], "without God." The word originally described those,
like Socrates, who disbelieved in the official gods of the State.
It was with this meaning that the Roman pagans used the term of
Christians. At least four classes of atheists may be
distinguished:
1) Those who explicitly deny the existence of God, by virtue of
some metaphysics whose key idea positively excludes Him. . . .
2) Those who would argue that there are no satisfactory proofs of
God's existence. Since the time of T. H. Huxley (1825-1895), who
held this view but insisted that "atheism is on purely
philosophical grounds untenable," they are more aptly called
"agnostics." They would only be atheists if they went further to
deny that the word "god" had any meaning whatever. This
"agnostic" position seems to be the strongest form of atheism,
since it might well be argued against any explicit denial of God's
existence that it necessarily presupposes an idea of God, whereas
only a believer really knows what the word "God" means. . . .
3) Those who claim paradoxically that to be a philosophical
skeptic or atheist is the best preparation for embracing the
revealed truths of Christianity. . . .
4) Those who have reacted against religious authoritarianism,
with its emphasis on revelation. . . .
Chambers's Encyclopedia, 1973.
ATHEISM denotes properly the denial of the existence of God and is
to be distinguished at once from scepticism (q.v.), which is
suspense of judgement, and from agnosticism (q.v.), which is the
denial that God is knowable. There have been philosophies such as
dialectical materialism which are in principle atheistic, and
individual thinkers who, in the strict and proper sense, have been
atheists. Yet it remains true that dogmatic atheism is a
relatively rare intellectual position and that the majority of
those who in modern times have been regarded as atheists have been
in actual fact either agnostics or sceptics.
New Edinburgh Encyclopedia, 1813.
ATHEISM, may be defined to be, the total want of religious
principle.
The word is generally employed by modern writers to signify, the
absolute denial of an Intelligent First Cause. This has been
called _pure_atheism_. But we conceive, that those who habitually
doubt this fundamental doctrine, or who object to all the proofs
which have ever been offered in its support, must be considered as
subjecting themselves to the same charge, although they may not
have arrived at such a degree of hardiness, as formally to avow
their unqualified disbelief. Lord Shaftesbury thinks it hard that
any man should be pronounced an atheist, whose whole thoughts are
not steadily and invariably bent, at all times, and in all
circumstances, against every supposition of design in things. . . .
And some miscellaneous sources:
From _The New York Public Library Desk Reference_ (2nd ed.):
atheism The rejection of the belief in God. Some atheist have
held that there is nothing in the world that requires a God in
order to be explained. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism,
which holds that we can have knowledge neither of the existence
nor of the nonexistence of God.
From _Key Ideas in Human Thought_:
. . . In the ancient Greek world, to be _atheos_ ('without God')
. . . meant to hold false beliefs, and to fail to participate in
the official cult, rather than to have no beliefs at all. . . .
Since false gods cannot be said to exist in the same sense as true
gods, atheism, a negative, came to mean denial of belief. Not
only does God not exist, but to assert belief in him is wrong--a
modern attitude which stands the theist's argument on its head.
. . . '[T]heological atheism' holds that 'God' as a concept is
dead, that theological language must be reinvented to take account
of modern atheism, and that traditional arguments for the
existence of God must be scrapped, just as divine intervention can
no longer be used as the explanation for phenomena we do not
understand. The consequence of this development is that belief in
God supported by reason is no longer the norm, and theologians
have abdicated the realm of metaphysics to philosophers. . . .
. . . [T]here is a danger, for Westerners, in categorizing
Eastern religions as atheist when all they lack is the Western
concept of a creator-God or a comparable belief system. They are
still based on an experience of the numinous. . . .
-----
keith
Chris Kubiak
In article <5v7hu1$a...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ke...@alumnae.caltech.edu (Keith
A. Schneider) wrote:
Acutally, there should be a distinction made between two different kinds of
atheists. One being negative atheists and the other being positive atheists.
Negatve atheism entails simply the position of not believing the theistic God
exists. Positive atheism entails disbelieving in the theistic God exists. This
distinction is important because when arguing about Gods
existence/non-existence, atheistic philosophical arguments will differ between
the two.
Stix
Keith A. Schneider posted the following to alt.atheism:
>"dsg5" <ds...@flash.net> writes:
>
>>IMHO, atheism is simply the state of being without theistic beleifs.
>
>That is a fairly modern and narrow definition...
Oh hello Keith! I'm still here and you're still wrong. What is it now,
three years you've been flogging this dead horse? Four? Oh well, keep
flogging it, maybe one day it'll get up and run.......but I doubt it.
<snip pointless quotes>
Face it Keith, no matter how much you twitch and turn, and no matter how
many quotes you post, the simplest and most linguistically correct
definition of "atheism" is "a lack of theism." Wanna specify reasons for
that expressed lack of theism? Fine, attach a qualifying adjective.
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
David B. Greene
G. Marcaigh <ra...@ica.net> wrote:
>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) writes:
>> John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
>> It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
>> is not based on faith. I think it's often either insecurity, or
>> arrogance. An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
>> "I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
>Mr Long, you are a pinhead. You should check the FAQ on atheism. It is not
>a faith, but a lack of faith.
There you have it! It is a faith in your lack of faith. QED I'd say.
> Those who believe in god are suspending
>the faculty of reason in favour of irrational and unprovable faith. Faith
>and reason are mutually exclusive terms, regardless of which so-called
>great theologians you quote to the contrary.
So you're right no matter what anyone else says?! Faith and reason my be
independent, what proof do you have that they are mutually exclusive
instead. Even the Bible says "Come, let us reason together. Though your
sins be as scarlet they shall be made white as snow."
>We have no faith. The onus is on you. Prove to me there is a god. Is that
>too much to ask?
Yes, because in this thread that is not what is in dispute. What is in
dispute is if atheism is a faith or not. I'd say the onus is on you to
prove it is not a faith. The existence of God was not raised in this
thread and your bringing it up is nothing more than a red herring.
> Quoting the Bible to prove your point is irrelevant. It
>is not proof. If the holy books were proof, consider the difficulty with
>having to accept the Vedas, the Popul Vuh, The Book of Mormon, the Quran,
>the Upshanids, etc, etc. Who is right?
They may not be proof but they are evidence.
>The mystics of the the mind (Rand) have used religion to control society
>for centuries. Very seldom have they ever been asked to prove their
>assertions. With centuries of time to hone their arguments, you would
>think there would be proof.
Why would you think that?
>There is none. Atheism is the default position, not a faith.
If atheism is the defaul position then why are there so few atheists?
Perhaps because there is no proof?
Dave Greene
Torkel Franzen
Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> writes:
> .. so long as that ardent rationalist is not also an atheist.
There is no reason whatsoever why an ardent atheist and rationalist
should not be an equally ardent devotee of metaphoric nonsense. It's
all a matter of your attitude towards the metaphoric nonsense. It's a
sorry "rationalist" indeed who is prevented by some sort of
ideological scruples from enjoying and appreciating a colorful tall
tale of gods or elves or magic! Perhaps such lame-brained bores exist,
but there is no reason to assume that atheistic rationalists in
general conform to any such description.
Mats Andtbacka
Keith A. Schneider, in <5v7hu1$a...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>:
>"dsg5" <ds...@flash.net> writes:
>>IMHO, atheism is simply the state of being without theistic beleifs.
>That is a fairly modern and narrow definition... There are several
hey, look, keith is back. where ya been? and where did you pick up
that crossposting habit? humble advice: maybe best off kicking it.
for newcomers to alt.ath, keith schneider is a venerable old hand
(read: been here longer than me) whose main interest seems to be
disagreeing with the FAQ and all reasonable human beings so he can
start endless definition flamefests about what "atheist" means. if
you're not interested in this particular regularly recurring tar pit,
you might about as well killfile him.
which is not to say he should be flamed; it's been tried, and never
works. besides, he's not really deserving of napalm - apart from this
one quirk regarding the definition of this one word, he's a mostly
rational person, really.
(lots of dictionary worship deleted, because i don't follow *that*
religion either.)
--
"Yes i'm lonely..."
_Yer Blues_, Lennon / McCartney
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Jim Sarbeck (cjp...@batnet.nospam.com) wrote:
: While it may be one's adopted default position for belief, that does not
: make it a 'default position' for rational argumentation, or relieve a
: claimant of burden of proof. Better rules for burden of proof in rational
: argumentation are: first claimant has first burden of proof, and a
: stronger claim carries a stronger burden of proof
According to whom is this a "better" rule?
(Watson, Informal Logic, 1989).
Ah, yes -- your hero Watson, because he backs up your claim. How superior
you must believe yourself to be when you're right and everyone else isn't!
I notice the book is titled _Informal Logic_. It's been many a year since
my academic days, so I've forgotten -- what, exactly, is "informal" logic?
(Blue jeans allowed?) How does it differ from "formal" logic?
--
***********************************************************
I saw weird stuff in that place last night -- weird,
strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, *evil* stuff!
And I want in!
Homer J. Simpson
***********************************************************
Jim Sarbeck
In article <5v8qcf$dd0$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>, cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
: Jim Sarbeck (cjp...@batnet.nospam.com) wrote:
:
: : While it may be one's adopted default position for belief, that does not
: : make it a 'default position' for rational argumentation, or relieve a
: : claimant of burden of proof. Better rules for burden of proof in rational
: : argumentation are: first claimant has first burden of proof, and a
: : stronger claim carries a stronger burden of proof
:
: According to whom is this a "better" rule?
:
: (Watson, Informal Logic, 1989).
:
: Ah, yes -- your hero Watson, because he backs up your claim. How superior
: you must believe yourself to be when you're right and everyone else isn't!
:
: I notice the book is titled _Informal Logic_. It's been many a year since
: my academic days, so I've forgotten -- what, exactly, is "informal" logic?
: (Blue jeans allowed?) How does it differ from "formal" logic?
I acknowledge your ad hominem attack.
The fact is, I was advised by Raist to take a course in logic, which is
impractical. I searched for references supporting Raist's claim that
negative existentials carry no burden of proof, and found none. What I
found is what I found. I never heard of Watson till 5 days ago and have no
idea if he should be a hero to me or anyone. I don't feel superior or
'right', but I also do not believe I am alone. This is not about being
'right'.
"Informal Logic" is some publisher's idea of a good title for this book.
Watson calls it 'logical pragmatics' as opposed to formal logic theory.
"In logical theory, an argument is a set of propositions, nothing more or
less. ... In logical pragmatics, an argument is a claim that, according to
appropriate procedures of reasonable dialogue, should be relevant to
proving or establishing the arguer's conclusion at issue."
Czar, I will not expect support of negative claims from you. You have
stated your rule of operation, and more to the point, your manner of
argumentation shows how you operate. I have done the only kind of work
possible to support a proposed rule of argumentation. (It included a web
search, which found also
http://www.psych.nwu.edu/psych/people/grad/bailenson/1yp-total.html. This
reference cites studies showing that the first claimant is expected to
have a burden of proof, no basis of affirmative/negative was discussed, so
I didn't cite it. Then there is
http://www.co.carrollton.k12.ga.us/high/debate/novice.htm. Which has
debating rules, indicating that both sides are expected to support their
position and rebut the other's.
Watson's book was funded by a Killiam Research Fellowship and drew much
from the International Conference on Argumentation in Amsterdam in June
1986. He has over a dozen professionally accepted publications and this
book is used as a course text. You have done none that shows. I will ask
for support of negative claims when I think it is appropriate, and
recommend that approach to others.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Andrew Lias
In article <5v7hu1$a...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Keith A. Schneider <ke...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>"dsg5" <ds...@flash.net> writes:
>
>>IMHO, atheism is simply the state of being without theistic beleifs.
>
>That is a fairly modern and narrow definition...
Oh no, it's Keith "Horse Floggin'" Schneider!
Run away!! Run away!!
--
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:01:28 GMT, da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene)
announced to all:
>G. Marcaigh <ra...@ica.net> wrote:
>>j...@mti.net (Joe Long) writes:
>>> John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net>
>
>>> It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
>>> is not based on faith. I think it's often either insecurity, or
>>> arrogance. An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
>>> "I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
>
>>Mr Long, you are a pinhead. You should check the FAQ on atheism. It is not
>>a faith, but a lack of faith.
>
>There you have it! It is a faith in your lack of faith. QED I'd say.
I'd say that's self-contradictory. QED.
>
>> Those who believe in god are suspending
>>the faculty of reason in favour of irrational and unprovable faith. Faith
>>and reason are mutually exclusive terms, regardless of which so-called
>>great theologians you quote to the contrary.
>
>So you're right no matter what anyone else says?! Faith and reason my be
>independent, what proof do you have that they are mutually exclusive
>instead.
Reason demands evidence before belief. Faith demands belief and don't ever
bother looking for evidence. Mutually exclusive.
> Even the Bible says "Come, let us reason together. Though your
>sins be as scarlet they shall be made white as snow."
The wholly babble is a book of fairy tales.
>
>>We have no faith. The onus is on you. Prove to me there is a god. Is that
>>too much to ask?
>
>Yes, because in this thread that is not what is in dispute. What is in
>dispute is if atheism is a faith or not. I'd say the onus is on you to
>prove it is not a faith.
You'd be sorely mistaken.
Prove you don't have faith that Santa Claus does not exist.
> The existence of God was not raised in this
>thread and your bringing it up is nothing more than a red herring.
Sorry, it's central to the idea. "God" is posited by the theists. Atheists
lack belief in "god". That's what atheism is.
>
>> Quoting the Bible to prove your point is irrelevant. It
>>is not proof. If the holy books were proof, consider the difficulty with
>>having to accept the Vedas, the Popul Vuh, The Book of Mormon, the Quran,
>>the Upshanids, etc, etc. Who is right?
>
>They may not be proof but they are evidence.
They aren't even evidence. I can write a book claiming the moon is made of
green cheese, but does that make it evidence? Kansas is mentioned in The Wizard
of Oz; does that mean there's evidence of Oz?
>
>>The mystics of the the mind (Rand) have used religion to control society
>>for centuries. Very seldom have they ever been asked to prove their
>>assertions. With centuries of time to hone their arguments, you would
>>think there would be proof.
>
>Why would you think that?
Oh, I dunno. Maybe 'cuz people claim to have proof.
>
>>There is none. Atheism is the default position, not a faith.
>
>If atheism is the defaul position then why are there so few atheists?
Seems a bit of a screwed-up argumentum ad numerum
>Perhaps because there is no proof?
When you are born, you are an atheist. You have no concept of "god". You
are an implicit atheist. In time, most people are
indoctrinated--brainwashed--into thinking there's some magic sky pixie looking
out for them. Some people grow up an do away with that puerile belief. Most
never do. Most never question it.
G. Mark Stewart
John Strong (jst...@umbc.edu) wrote:
: [irrelevant political newsgroups removed from followups]
: David B. Greene (da...@antispam.halcyon.com) wrote:
: : gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart) wrote:
: : >Mike Ganopoulos (mg65...@netmeg.net) wrote:
: : >: some...@infi.net wrote:
: : >: >Atheism is not a religion.
: : >: >I understand that you are trying to sell the idea that "A" is "A", and "B"
: : >: >is also "A."
: : >: >That is your theory and that is kewl, however, it doesn't make it a fact.
: : >: If atheism is not a religion, then maybe you could explain to me
: : >: what a religion is.
: : >One may call atheism a religion or not a religion, since one may have
: : >different criteria for calling it such.
: This "one" must also be a dumbass, because if one weren't, one wouldn't
: obfuscate the issue by making up definitions to suit one's own
: preferences.
Are you trying to claim that there aren't not only religions, but religions
recognized by significant groups of people that you wouldn't call "idiotic"
or even just "less than practical"? I suppose you could call the practitioners
dumbasses, but would you call anyone that said, "yeah, I guess that's a
religion-- a stupid one, but a religion" necessarily a dumbass?
: : >It is, however, a faith, and no amount of bullshit redefinitions is
: : >going to change that as long as the people discussing it are using
: : >a standard dictionary. If they are not using a standard dictionary,
: : >then I get to write my own special dictionary as well, and it defines
: : >"idiot" as someone that tries to claim that atheism is not a "faith".
: What a load of ignorant crap! This isn't a difficult concept.
: Atheism = lack of theism. As an atheist, I don't believe in a god.
Oh. Sorry, but the issue is "someone that claims that there is no god".
You can use your definition, and you can have a happy life. You can also
claim that you have the "only" definition in your posession. But if you do,
two things will happen. 1) You will bore me, and you certainly don't want that,
being such an entertaining person and all, and 2) you will be wrong, because
others claim that atheism means exactly what you say it doesn't.
: That is very very different than saying "I believe there is no god". If
: you don't see the glaring difference, either kill yourself for being
: so goddamned stupid, or take a couple classes in logic.
: Atheism, at its core, is simply a lack of belief. Now, are you saying that
: a lack of belief = belief? A lack of food = food? A lack of intelligence
: = intelligence?
You are aware of what's been said, and you're getting awfully repetitious,
and I suspect you dont' like the label "agnostic". If it's because you think
that the existence or non-existence of god is knowable, then you're not only
boring, you're wrong.
: There are atheists that take it one step further and state that there is
: no god. This does not change the fundamental definition of athiesm,
: however. Athiesm is still, simply, a lack of belief.
Who are those nasty people that were fully aware of that and listed all those
other definitions in the dictionary to spite you?
I'll help you kick their butts, if you like.
: : Excellent points, Mark. Atheism is too broad to be pigeonholed by a simple
: : dictionary definition. There is a lot of tradiotion and history that has
: : shaped the atheist belief system. I'd suggest that those bound to a
: : simplistic dictionary definition broaden their horizons with a look at the
: : Encyclopedia Brittanica for example.
: Athiesm is not "broad". Atheism is very clearly defined. The extent to
: which individuals embrace an athiestic outlook is broad.
Hey, thanks, Merriam Webster.
BTW, I've just defined "Monkey Spank" as "a fluffy pastry consumed by
dolphins". If you disagree, you're just "full of crap", or whatever you said.
: -John aka Dr. Monkey Spank
: Simian Disciplinary Systems Institute
Thanks, John.
GMS
htttp://www.svs.com/users/gmark
Flipper
G. Mark Stewart wrote:
> BTW, I've just defined "Monkey Spank" as "a fluffy pastry consumed by
> dolphins". If you disagree, you're just "full of crap", or whatever
you said.
So that's what it's called! I *love* that stuff!
Ross Williams
Paul becomes Aristotlean:
>Ross Williams wrote:
>> What *is* provable, however, is that nonbelief "is the default position".
>>
>> Please substantiate this assertion, or chalk it up to a non-provable
>> religious epiphany of your own and let us mock you for being an illogical
>> dweeb.
>>
>> Write your proof in the space provided below:
Paul, my good man, you made a sincere and valiant effort. I shall
not mock you. Perhaps you could give sincerity lessons to Mr Wizard.
>It is easily demonstrated that a default position of non-belief is
>the only rational position. There are an infinite number of beings
>or events that have no evidence supporting their existence. A few
>examples:
[examples stipulated as being not provable]
>Given that all these have exactly the same evidence for
>their existence (ie none), we cannot rationally pick or chose
>any to believe in to the exclusion of others.
Rationally? I'm certain not. However. Comma. Name an
individual who does everything rationally. Even *most* things.
*Some* things? Doesn't happen, my friend. I love my kids.
Love is irrational, yet I wouldn't have it any other way. It makes
me feel good. Those who are religious have pretty much the
same result: it makes them feel good.
We are not automata. We do things on feeling and "just because"
every day. Illogical? Yes. So what? You choose "belief in God"
to be one of a handful of issues in the entire course of your life
that will be the "logical choice" issue. Great. Others use that
effort to pick cars, or houses, or television sets or computers. But
you're going to use that energy on religion. Knock yourself out.
>If you do this,
>it must be chosen willy-nilly. A rational approach (given
>the evidence for all is the same) is to treat them in all the
>same manner, either belief or non-belief. However, if you chose
Irrelevant. Relevance is a prime component of Reason, and this
is clearly not. To be relevant you'd have to describe something
that is soluble in the real world. Something that has some amount
of evidentiary findings to support it. You're not going to be able
to prove that "People:The Rational Beings" when faced with the
dilemma of two equally absurd choices must "logically" choose
them both. There is no evidence whatsoever behind that.
There was a minor pholosopher a few centuries ago who tried
this out on his ass. He opined that the ass was just as rational as
any human being -- not too far off imo. He experimented. When the
ass was provided two bales of hay, one closer than the other, the
ass would eat from the one that was closer. Ah-HA! So if they
were equi-distant... the ass would be stymied. He would be
puzzled, he would fall to the floor in a metaphoric logical puddle
because one option was no better than the other.
Wrong.
The ass went to the bale of hay that he wanted to go to.
"Just because".
It is not for nothing that this minor philosopher is not routinely
studied.
>belief, then you are required to believe in all possible events
>that have no evidence for them. This includes the possibilities
"Required"? By what or by whom? I'm a Cubs fan. I believe the
Cubs are a great team. This in no way diminishes Tom Selleck's
belief that the Detroit Tigers are a great team, or Billy Crystal's
similar belief about the Yankees. There is really little substantive
evidence that one team is "greater" than another, even by
won-loss records, especially now with a wild-card playoff spot
and potentially more to come. There are measurements all over
the place wrt baseball and greatness: staff ERA; homers; team
batting avg; fielding %age; etc. It may be 'reasonable' to draw
any number of otherwise contradictory conclusions about
greatness in baseball -- the Cubs traditionally have a whole passel
of homers, for example. But, are the Cubs "great"? To whom?
Okay, won-loss record, then. How many times has the team in the
Series with the lesser W-L won the Series? So then is that the
True Answer? Oh, okay, best of seven, then? which is,
according to all the baseball experts, including Costas (the Son of
Baseball God) more a matter of luck and timing than much else.
Then why go through the season!
Okay, so, there is no standout, killer, one-size-fits-all "rational"
reason to believe any team is greater than any other, therefore the
only "reasonable" choice is to consider them all equally great.
'Scuse me?
I'm a Cubs fan because I like the Cubs. Crystal is a Yankees fan
because he likes the Yankees. Selleck's a Tigers fan because he
likes the Tigers. That ain't gonna change. Reason don't enter
into it. This is human stuff. The three of us -- me, Selleck and
Crystal -- are humans. Deal with us as we are, not as you'd prefer
us to be.
And, on top of it all, this has no bearing on those folks who prefer
football, or who don't like sports in any way, or simply likes the
game for the exercise. None. None is more "rational" than any
other. But they are generally very exclusive in their
selectability. God, yes. Pink unicorns, no. Elvis reincarnate,
don't be absurd. None are more "logical", some are simply less
palatable.
*One* Elvis was two too many in any event.
>above, and other bizarre things such as your wife is the anti-christ
She is. Shhh. She doesn't think I know.
>as described in Revelations and that all your family members
>are serial killers. You also must believe in contradictory statements,
Hello, Paul. Wake up. That is the one magical reality of the
human mind: it's ability to absorb and internalize contradictions
and fundamental inconsistencies.
Before you can approach anything similar to "Religion is illogical
therefore it's <fill in the blank>" you have to deal with that. I
have yet to see anyone do so. Yes, religion *is* illogical. So
what? So is me loving my kids. So is my belief that they are the
smartest, that the '96 Braves were better than the '96 Yankees, etc.
>such as "person X in Great Britain whom you do not know is a serial
>killer _and_ person X is a great humanitarian who wouldn't hurt a
>flea." You have exactly the same evidence that both of these
>possibilities are true. If you chose to believe everything
>for which there is no evidence, your belief involves a logical
>contradiction.
Welcome to Psychology, guy.
>If your default position is dis-belief, you do
>not believe that your wife is the anti-christ, your family are serial
>killers, and person X is not both a killer and a humanitarian
You are a Rationalist. "I can theorize about these things, and the
numbers add up; so therefore this is reality."
Sorry.
Name a primitive culture which does not have a highly embedded
deity or deities. Now. You were saying about "default position"?
>(actually, this is the case for _all_ people that you don't know).
>Therefore, it is only logical to select a position of non-belief.
Okay Mr Spock. Live long and prosper.
Kevin R. Pierce
David B. Greene wrote:
>
> If atheism is the defaul position then why are there so few atheists?
>
Proof has nothing to do with it. There is/are no heavenly or otherwise
ethereal god(s). (Please get a grip. It's amazing how much you can do
when you realize that it's all up to you.)
Religion exists because the masses are scared to admit that they are
alone here on earth. Why do you think children create imaginary friends
and people believe in ghosts? Why do you think UFO culture is coming on
strong? We are afraid to admit that we are alone.
Running with the pack (or flock) has and will always be a useful method
of avoiding predators. It's an excellent survival technique. If you
think of the human race as a single collective animal and each of us a
cellular component of that larger animal, it's easy to understand our
anxiety about being all alone here on Earth. It's very comforting to
believe that there is something "out there", either divine (god[s]) or
at least equal (E.T.'s). Belief in the imaginary relieves our fear of
being alone.
Religions come and go. Christianity and other "modern" religions will
either evolve or be replaced with whatever grows more popular. Yes,
religions evolves. It's happening right now:
From the 8/25/97 Newsweek cover story: "A growing movement in the Roman
Catholic Church wants the pope to proclaim a new, controversial dogma:
that Mary is a Co-Redeemer." In other words, the Vatican has received
petitions carrying 4.3 millions signatures from 157 countries asking the
pope to make the "infallible pronouncement" that all prayers flow
through Mary, who then brings them to the attention of Christ.
Imagine all the wasted time and paper. Perhaps the human race needs a
higher sense of self-esteem. Our herding instinct is too useful to
discard. We must direct it into positive, not divisive efforts. Religion
is a waste of our resources and it impedes our progress as a species.
--
Kevin R. Pierce
Atheist and Mensan
Ross Williams
Torkel confesses:
>Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> writes:
> > .. so long as that ardent rationalist is not also an atheist.
> There is no reason whatsoever why an ardent atheist and rationalist
>should not be an equally ardent devotee of metaphoric nonsense. It's
>all a matter of your attitude towards the metaphoric nonsense.
Hmmm. Interesting. I personally think the God question is a
metaphore.
So what you're saying is that a rationalist atheist could actually
believe in God and not fundamentally contravene his believe
system.
>It's a sorry "rationalist" indeed who is prevented by some sort of
>ideological scruples from enjoying and appreciating a colorful tall
>tale of gods or elves or magic!
Indeed. I don't care one whit about atheists; it's those rationalists
that get my neck hairs straight. The considerable weight of their
thought overrules the real world. I don't think so.
>Perhaps such lame-brained bores exist,
>but there is no reason to assume that atheistic rationalists in
>general conform to any such description.
I'm relieved, in a way, to hear this. It reconfirms what I just told
Paul somebody-r-other. Even rationalists are not immune from
holding and comforting contradictory positions in their mental
bosom. Sorta obviates their claim to being Rationalists, though.
But what the heck.
I'm the Queen of England. Apparently I don't need to prove it.
JohnAcadInt
Ross Williams wrote:
.>
.> Torkel confesses:
.> >Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> writes:
.> > > .. so long as that ardent rationalist is not also an atheist.
.> > There is no reason whatsoever why an ardent atheist and rationalist
.> >should not be an equally ardent devotee of metaphoric nonsense. It's
.> >all a matter of your attitude towards the metaphoric nonsense.
.>
.> Hmmm. Interesting. I personally think the God question is a
.> metaphore.
.>
.> So what you're saying is that a rationalist atheist could actually
.> believe in God and not fundamentally contravene his believe
.> system.
.>
.> >It's a sorry "rationalist" indeed who is prevented by some sort of
.> >ideological scruples from enjoying and appreciating a colorful tall
.> >tale of gods or elves or magic!
.>
.> Indeed. I don't care one whit about atheists; it's those rationalists
.> that get my neck hairs straight. The considerable weight of their
.> thought overrules the real world. I don't think so.
.>
.> >Perhaps such lame-brained bores exist,
.> >but there is no reason to assume that atheistic rationalists in
.> >general conform to any such description.
.>
.> I'm relieved, in a way, to hear this. It reconfirms what I just told
.> Paul somebody-r-other. Even rationalists are not immune from
.> holding and comforting contradictory positions in their mental
.> bosom. Sorta obviates their claim to being Rationalists, though.
.> But what the heck.
.>
.> I'm the Queen of England. Apparently I don't need to prove it.
Rubbish! I am! I have been grooming myself for this position for several
years and I am not now to be cheated out of it simply because you
have a grasp of logic. I don't want to be difficult, however: I'll
do Balmoral if you'll do Buckingham Palace. Is the third one a size 12?
Anyway, we'll get a generous dress allowance. I don't know about you, but
I plan to show a bit of leg.
Interesting quote from this debate:
'I was responding to another poster's statement (David B. Greene
(da...@antispam.halcyon.com)) that "There is a lot of tradition and history
that has shaped the atheist belief system." As to the rest of your
comments, I have no idea what you are talking about. I made no claim about
a "historical tradition" except to say that whatever tradition may exist
does not "bind all atheists to a particular point of view." Is there
something about that you don't understand?'
As Nietzsche had it, if we understood grammar the 'God-idea' would not
arise. Updated by Russell, 'existence is not a predicate'. Those who negate
the existential predicate as such by way of a universal affirmative
proposition are, I fear, bound together only by their own silliness.
I think David Greene makes a good point. I used to debate the so-called
Free Thinkers, and I found them to be fanatically anti-religious. There
is, of course, the noble stand of the likes of Bradlaugh to be considered,
but most of the ones I dealt with were ex-monks or ex-nuns, and frequently
in and out of what we are no longer allowed to call lunatic asylums. One,
after a brief and unconvincing affair with libertarianism, is now esconced
in a monastery somewhere in Brittany. Troubled souls, to be sure.
For obvious reasons, I have no position on theism. I see nothing inherently
contradictory, however, in the notion that life on earth may be somebody's
experiment - or even, entertainment! Having gratuitously benefitted from
supply drops in WW2, the Trobriand islanders invested pointless time and
energy in attempting to attract 'the Gods from the sky,' even fashioning
control towers out of the fabric of their world - grasses, vines and trees -
and laying out runaways for the gods to land. [ Expect they are now fully
funded! Ed.]
We live, I think, in one big, interconnected place. Marvin Minsky
mischievously said that he intended to become immortal by computing
himself. Silicon is probably not up to the job, but maybe, somewhere,
someone has cracked the problem. Who can say whether a more advanced
form of life has found its way to our little world? The late Carl Sagan,
before he fell into the arms of the 'rationalists', opined that we might
be as little aware of the presence of a sufficiently advanced intelligence
as are the ants that busy themselves around the edges of our swimming-
pools [Baptismal fonts, if you don't mind! Ed.].
It is a pity, I think, that 'science' has become an arbiter in human
affairs - as an alternative to 'religion.' This fatuous opposition is,
alas, deeply embedded in world culture for purely historical [i.e.
*accidental*. Ed.] reasons and serves us all ill. It has generated a
level of intolerance and hubris that only a few scientists and
philosophers have dared challenge - for example, Ernst Cassirer,
Michael Polyani, and C.P.Snow.
Yrs evr
JohnM
&
The Trollenberg Terror
David B. Greene
>>
>> What *is* provable, however, is that nonbelief "is the default position".
>>
>> Please substantiate this assertion, or chalk it up to a non-provable
>> religious epiphany of your own and let us mock you for being an illogical
>> dweeb.
>>
>> Write your proof in the space provided below:
>>
>It is easily demonstrated that a default position of non-belief is
>the only rational position. There are an infinite number of beings
>or events that have no evidence supporting their existence. A few
>examples:
>god
>invisible unicorns orbiting pluto
>elves that float directly behind you at all times
>etc
>Given that all these have exactly the same evidence for
>their existence (ie none), we cannot rationally pick or chose
>any to believe in to the exclusion of others.
That is an incredibly bizarre and ignorant statement. One may disagree
with the evidence but to say the evidence is equal and non existent is just
plain silly.
> If you do this,
>it must be chosen willy-nilly. A rational approach (given
>the evidence for all is the same) is to treat them in all the
>same manner, either belief or non-belief. However, if you chose
>belief, then you are required to believe in all possible events
>that have no evidence for them. This includes the possibilities
>above, and other bizarre things such as your wife is the anti-christ
>as described in Revelations and that all your family members
>are serial killers. You also must believe in contradictory statements,
>such as "person X in Great Britain whom you do not know is a serial
>killer _and_ person X is a great humanitarian who wouldn't hurt a
>flea." You have exactly the same evidence that both of these
>possibilities are true. If you chose to believe everything
>for which there is no evidence, your belief involves a logical
>contradiction. If your default position is dis-belief, you do
>not believe that your wife is the anti-christ, your family are serial
>killers, and person X is not both a killer and a humanitarian (actually,
>this is the case for _all_ people that you don't know).
>Therefore, it is only logical to select a position of non-belief.
This argument is flawed in that evidence is not equal and non existant in
all cases.
Dave Greene
Torkel Franzen
Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> writes:
>So what you're saying is that a rationalist atheist could actually
>believe in God and not fundamentally contravene his believe
>system.
Actually I think you will find that most devotees of The Lord of the
Rings don't take it to be actual history, but enjoy it thoroughly
nontheless.
JohnAcadInt
David B. Greene wrote:
<snip>
.> >> An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
.> >>"I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
.>
.> > But do theists use reason in their belief in god? No.
.>
.> Oh? Upon what holy font of wisdom is that derived from? Reason is but one
.> tool among many, why should it have the sole billing as the arbiter of
.> truth? Why can it not be one of the several arrows in the quiver of
.> religious truth? It is not the only arrow in the quiver of scientific
.> truth.
.>
.> Did Kekule use reason to deduce the structure of the Benzene ring?
Well, his dream may have favoured his prepared mind, but it is later
that the papers and the reasonings come. Rationalists, as Nietzsche
shows again and again, invert cause and effect. They come to talk as
if their 'knowledge' is obvious - assimilating everything to the
'known.' The 'known' then becomes the touchstone of the possible -
except, of course, for lively iconclastic personalities, such as
Socrates in the social 'world' or Galileo or Newton in the physical
'world'. If Popper has got the balance right, we discover by trial
and error the structure of our world. This means that there is
some structure to discover, and may be taken, also, to imply that
there is an 'I', however primitive, which may set out to make
discoveries! It also means that knowledge cannot be acquired by
deduction from first principles. Far from what most people think,
the connexion between theory and practice is not at all an easy one:
it is a matter of conjecture and refutation. However, the current
Flat Earth will be defended to the last ditch! Because the world is
'rational' [Logical? Ed.], the succeeding Flat Earths will be seen as
totally logical and self-evident, and vigorously defended by lots of
silly people who, to put it charitably, have lost their sense of wonder.
'Science' has no opinions or views. Indeed, I believe that the transfer
of ethics to 'profesionals' is destroying our world. I know some of
these people. They have two cars and a big house, kids away at prep
school, and are engaged in 'socially engineering' teenagers off the
streets of London. These kids live in doorways along Oxford Street
and Charing Cross Road. The detritus of the Thatcher years, they are
ultimately the bountiful product of 'rationalism' - whose efforts were
intended to ensure their success, we are told.! In Cambodia, Soviet
Russia, and Nazi Germany, we have seen 'rationalism' at work. Golly,
wasn't it great!
I hold no brief for organised, God-fearing religion of any sort, but
it is certainly arguable that it has done less harm than its secular
alternative, the religion of 'science'.
> Dave Greene
JohnM
and the TT
Gonzalas
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:02:20 -0600, sh...@hotmail.com (Michael Martin)
wrote:
This is interesting. Pay atention to the three main points:
>God is within each one of us. He hides behind a thin veil. This veil is
>thinner than the wing of a butterfly. This veil is our own mind. When
>we can still the mind by meditation, then our soul can return to its
>creator. He does exist, and Saints, Mystics, and Mahatmas have been
>trying to tell us this all-important fact since time immemorial.
One, it is us (our "minds") that keep us from bliss. We can't help it,
it is our heritige (or original sin, if you will). We are stuck, and
nearly hopeless.
>As long as we remain separated from our Source, the Creator, our soul
>will never be happy, because it is pure spirit, and in these regions,
>physical, astral, causal, our soul is forced to live in maya, or material
>creation. It is sort of like, a drop of water is pure water, when it
>leaves the rain cloud, but when it reaches the dirt, it becomes mixed
>with the dirt. Our soul is encased in this body of flesh, blood, and
>bones. It wants to get out of it, and go back to the Creator. When we
>cast off all bodies, our soul flies like a bird out of a cage, because it
>is so happy to be free.
Two, there is really no other way to be happy but this way.
>To realize God, we must take shelter with a Living Master, who can take
>you back to the Creator. We can't go on our own. We have been prisoners
>of the Negative Power, or Satan, for many ages, and only someone who is
>more powerful than Satan is able to free us. That great liberator is the
>Living Master. He will teach us the meditation practice, and will guide
>us back to our true home. He accompanies us all the way back. We have
>to cross seven spiritual regions, before we can meet the Creator in the
>eighth.
And three: of course, the author is here to help us break free and
find bliss.
>Michael Martin
>The Living Master for the Western World
What are your qualifications for this, Living Master?
Gonzalas, #528
Van Isaac Anderson
David B. Greene wrote:
> >> It's funny to see some atheists try so hard to claim that their belief
> >> is not based on faith. I think it's often either insecurity, or
> >> arrogance. An attempt to disparage those who believe in God, saying
> >> "I'm logical and you're not." Which is, of course, pure poppycock.
>
> >Mr Long, you are a pinhead. You should check the FAQ on atheism. It is not
> >a faith, but a lack of faith.
>
> There you have it! It is a faith in your lack of faith. QED I'd say.
That's not what he said, and you know it you lying sack of
idol-worshiping shit. He said, and I quote "It [atheism] is ... a lack
of faith." You really need to take some grammar, so you can decipher
compound sentences.
> > Those who believe in god are suspending
> >the faculty of reason in favour of irrational and unprovable faith. Faith
> >and reason are mutually exclusive terms, regardless of which so-called
> >great theologians you quote to the contrary.
>
> So you're right no matter what anyone else says?! Faith and reason my be
> independent, what proof do you have that they are mutually exclusive
> instead. Even the Bible says "Come, let us reason together. Though your
> sins be as scarlet they shall be made white as snow."
>
> >We have no faith. The onus is on you. Prove to me there is a god. Is that
> >too much to ask?
>
> Yes, because in this thread that is not what is in dispute. What is in
> dispute is if atheism is a faith or not. I'd say the onus is on you to
> prove it is not a faith. The existence of God was not raised in this
> thread and your bringing it up is nothing more than a red herring.
Again, you do not understand the concept of the positive claimant
needing to supply supporting evidence. You seem to have a hard time
understanding this concept, even though it has been explained ad
absurdum.
> >There is none. Atheism is the default position, not a faith.
>
> If atheism is the defaul position then why are there so few atheists?
> Perhaps because there is no proof?
It could be that theists, in the past, have killed and tortured those
who did not believe the way they did. They then spread their
idol-worship across the land with the message that those who do not
believe shall die. Quite simply, theism is successful because of its
brutality.
Ross Williams
The Archmage can't conjure up a card trick, even:
>On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:01:28 GMT, da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene) announced to all:
>>G. Marcaigh <ra...@ica.net> wrote:
>>If atheism is the defaul position then why are there so few atheists?
In response to a screwed up assertion for which there is no
evidence to support it and mucho evidence to deny it.
>>Perhaps because there is no proof?
> When you are born, you are an atheist. You have no concept of "god". You
Perhaps you should study some child psychology, then. Children
are born with an innate comprehension of being provided for by
something they do not understand. This "god concept" is known
as mommy and/or daddy. After they become aware of the
physical presence which provides/d their needs, they learn that
there are many other things which are provided through yet more
mechanisms they do not understand.
In the absence of a sufficiently advanced technology and concomitant
understanding of the physical laws which drive the universe, the
primitive culture is driven to attribute all such unknown mechanisms
to a black box (or several) which they call god(s).
Voila, mysticism and naturist religions are born.
Really, for a group of people so desparate to claim rational and reasoned
criteria for selecting a belief system, there's barely a one of you
that has demonstrated even a rudimentary knowledge of human psychology
or anthropology.
A "default position" is one which an entity is first set to. An entity
can be a person, a society, or a culture. Name a single primitive
culture which does not have at least one mystical Source For All
That is Unexplained.
Then come back and we'll talk about "default position" again.
>are an implicit atheist. In time, most people are
>indoctrinated--brainwashed--into thinking there's some magic sky pixie looking
>out for them. Some people grow up an do away with that puerile belief. Most
>never do. Most never question it.
Most people do *not* question their conforting asumptions. You,
twinkle-toes, are no different. Learn something of the matter of
children, societies and cultures before you go expounding on
them to your self-satisfaction.
Ross Williams
Van Isaac Anderson <vani...@geocities.com> writes:
> > >Mr Long, you are a pinhead. You should check the FAQ on atheism. It is not
> > >a faith, but a lack of faith.
> > There you have it! It is a faith in your lack of faith. QED I'd say.
>
> That's not what he said, and you know it you lying sack of
> idol-worshiping shit. He said, and I quote "It [atheism] is ... a lack
> of faith." You really need to take some grammar, so you can decipher
> compound sentences.
This must not be one of those fabled-in-song-and-story rational atheists
one hears about hereabouts.
> > >We have no faith. The onus is on you. Prove to me there is a god. Is that
> > >too much to ask?
> > Yes, because in this thread that is not what is in dispute. What is in
> > dispute is if atheism is a faith or not. I'd say the onus is on you to
> > prove it is not a faith. The existence of God was not raised in this
> > thread and your bringing it up is nothing more than a red herring.
>
> Again, you do not understand the concept of the positive claimant
> needing to supply supporting evidence.
Let's establish the rules here: first, is the 'God Question' unprovable?
>You seem to have a hard time
> understanding this concept, even though it has been explained ad
> absurdum.
'Ad absurdum' == 'by the absurd'.
> > >There is none. Atheism is the default position, not a faith.
Here is a "positive assertion". Please provide evidence. Or retract it.
Your FAQ is not evidence, but assertion.
I'll take psychological evidence or anthropological evidence.
> > If atheism is the defaul position then why are there so few atheists?
> > Perhaps because there is no proof?
> It could be that theists, in the past, have killed and tortured those
> who did not believe the way they did. They then spread their
> idol-worship across the land with the message that those who do not
> believe shall die. Quite simply, theism is successful because of its
> brutality.
Welcome to the conjunction of biology, history and anthro, my good buddy.
All cultures which forced their continuity were successfully propogated
into succeeding generations.
Why do you think that is? And why do you think religion had anything to
do with it?
You can please provide evidence that religion was the cultural quality
which created said brutality.
> Van Isaac Anderson alt.atheist #716
> "I know of no better goal in life than to perish in attempting the great
> and the impossible." - FNietzsche
And you don't want to try to prove the existence of God?
Van, Van, Van! Resigning yourself to raging mediocrity so early in
life! You are a poor disciple of Nietzsche.
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
On 13 Sep 1997 00:04:07 GMT, Ross Williams <rwi...@intertek.nettt> announced
to all:
>The Archmage can't conjure up a card trick, even:
>>On Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:01:28 GMT, da...@antispam.halcyon.com (David B. Greene) announced to all:
>>>G. Marcaigh <ra...@ica.net> wrote:
>>>>There is none. Atheism is the default position, not a faith.
>>>If atheism is the defaul position then why are there so few atheists?
>> Seems a bit of a screwed-up argumentum ad numerum
>
>In response to a screwed up assertion for which there is no
>evidence to support it and mucho evidence to deny it.
Aha. And you were born knowing that god exists? I'm sure.
<pats Ross on the head>
Now go take your meds.
>
>>>Perhaps because there is no proof?
>> When you are born, you are an atheist. You have no concept of "god". You
>
>Perhaps you should study some child psychology, then.
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten the class as to how you were born knowing
there was a god?
I'm waiting.
>Really, for a group of people so desparate to claim rational and reasoned
>criteria for selecting a belief system, there's barely a one of you
>that has demonstrated even a rudimentary knowledge of human psychology
>or anthropology.
And these have to do what with what now?
>A "default position" is one which an entity is first set to. An entity
>can be a person, a society, or a culture. Name a single primitive
>culture which does not have at least one mystical Source For All
>That is Unexplained.
<sigh>
When you are born, you are devoid of any cultural concepts, you fucking
twat. You have no knowledge of an mores or morals or culture or any fucking
thing other than you've just shit or pissed or you're hungry or thirsty or
sleepy. That's fucking it.
>Then come back and we'll talk about "default position" again.
Done that.
>
>>are an implicit atheist. In time, most people are
>>indoctrinated--brainwashed--into thinking there's some magic sky pixie looking
>>out for them. Some people grow up an do away with that puerile belief. Most
>>never do. Most never question it.
>
>Most people do *not* question their conforting asumptions. You,
>twinkle-toes, are no different.
Au contraire. God is a "comforting" concept. I used to be a theist. I
rejected theism as being twaddle.
How'm I not different now?
Now fuck off, you self-important sack of shit.
Ross Williams
JohnAcadInt <ah...@dial.pipex.com> usurps as follows:
> .> I'm relieved, in a way, to hear this. It reconfirms what I just told
> .> Paul somebody-r-other. Even rationalists are not immune from
> .> holding and comforting contradictory positions in their mental
> .> bosom. Sorta obviates their claim to being Rationalists, though.
> .> But what the heck.
> .>
> .> I'm the Queen of England. Apparently I don't need to prove it.
>
> Rubbish! I am! I have been grooming myself for this position for several
> years and I am not now to be cheated out of it simply because you
> have a grasp of logic. I don't want to be difficult, however: I'll
Damned inconsiderate of me.
> do Balmoral if you'll do Buckingham Palace. Is the third one a size 12?
Ah! A rending of the dominion. I get Scotland.
Don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but the Plantagenets piked my kin
out of our crown (Bruce? Bruce who?) and it's been passed down from one
theiving royal family to the next ever since.
> Anyway, we'll get a generous dress allowance. I don't know about you, but
> I plan to show a bit of leg.
You are a cheeky lad.
Michelle Malkin
wal...@dnvn.com wrote:
>In article <341bfe2c...@news.execpc.com>,
>Rais...@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage)
>wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 1997 19:11:41 GMT, gt1...@acmey.gatech.edu (Delphin) announced to
>> all:
>>
>> >Andrew Hall (ah...@remus.cs.uml.edu) wrote:
>> >: >>>>> Delphin writes:
>> >
>> >: Delphin> Atheist - one who believes that there is no God`
>> >
>> >: No, just one that lacks belief in a god or gods.
>> >
>> >what exactly does 'lacks belief in a god or gods' mean that is
>> >substantially different from denying the existance of a god or
>> >gods?
>>
>> Do you have a green car? For the sake of argument, let's say you
>don't. So
>> you lack a green car.
>>
>> Geddit?
>>
>In other words you want to define atheism as a defect on the part of
>the nonbeliever? They 'lack' or 'fail to believe' in a god?
>The first definition seems more accurate and less agenda laden.
What YOU seem to misunderstand is that to deny something, you must believe
it exists to begin with. We disbelieve in the EXISTENCE of any god or
gods, including the subset you happen to believe in. There is no agenda
involved, except your own attempts to get us to believe in your
superstition. To not believe in the existence of your or any other god is
not a failure, no matter how you view it. It is a freedom from slavery of
the mind to dead and deadening superstition.
Michelle Malkin
political newsgroups deleted
>k
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
A young theologian named Fiddle,
Refused to accept his degree.
"'Tis bad enough being named Fiddle
Without being Fiddle, D.D."
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Serene & Sanguine Sagacity
Flipper <scr...@fbc.org> wrote:
Yeah, but don't ask what he uses for the filling.
~~~"Serene" *Sheila Green* "Sagacity"~~~
[aka Word Warrior green*@tristate.pgh.net]
"Eat me, and use your head for better than
the mere absorption of monitor radiation."