Why Atheism?
e cooper
What are the justifications for being an atheist?
jas...@omnilinx.net
In article <6n54h1$rho$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>,
"e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote:
> What are the justifications for being an atheist?
Lack of evidence for any deities.
Jason P.
"I shall be asked why I have really narrated all these little things [...].
It is precisely here that one has to begin to learn anew." -Nietzsche
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Xalan
e cooper wrote in message <6n54h1$rho$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>
Why do I need to justify myself?
||| |||
|||
||| |||ALAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
"The more you stretch the truth, the easier it is to see through it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Atheist#: 1211 ICQ#: 12811297
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
My Website: http://www3.mistral.co/xalan/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
In article <6n54h1$rho$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>, e cooper wrote:
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>
>
What is the justification in believing in god or gods when there isn't a
shred of evidence? Do you still believe in the easter bunny and santa
claus?
Michelle Malkin
already condemning us for not agreeing with your beliefs.
Mickey
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Mickey (Michelle Malkin), alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list #1
unnumbered member of the EAC
Rev Mick of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am (ULC Minister #3)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
I know of no book which has been a source of brutality and sadistic conduct,
both public and private,that compares with the Bible - Lord Paget
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Unasked for e-mail advertisements will be deleted unread.
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Christopher A. Lee
In article <6n54h1$rho$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk> "e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> writes:
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
You've got it the wrong way round. Nobody starts off
being a theist. It has to be taught/learned/etc. And
an atheist is simply somebody wo isn't theust.
Jim Sarbeck
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
It is God's plan for me.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Steve Sondericker
Why does there need to be a justification?
bob
e cooper wrote in message <6n54h1$rho$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
Do we NEED a justification? Does a flower need a justification to be a
flower? No. A flower is a flower because it fits the description of a
flower. I'm an atheist. EOS.
Next (stupid) question?
Rev. bob
AA#8
AAM#8
EAC#88
"Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated out of
nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing -- with 'obscenity' and 'indecent
exposure' fighting it out for second and third place."
Lazarus Long, from Time Enough For Love - R. Heinlein
David Johnston
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
You make it sound like a crime.
Wightkin
too much science I guess
Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<35975a2b...@news.mindspring.com>...
> "e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote:
> >What are the justifications for being an atheist?
> >
MagyckMe
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
A desire not to fool oneself into thinking whatever one is told to think, or
into believing whatever one is told to believe, without a shred of evidence to
support those thoughts or beliefs.
===========================================================
"I speak the way, and the way is open." ...Louise Cooper, the Chaos Gate
Trilogy
"Even Chaos has a pattern." ...bumper sticker
"'And who do you think created Chaos?' said the lawyer." ;-)
Don Kresch
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 09:58:41 +0100, "e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> summoned
up some courage and said:
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
There's no justification for being a theist, and since there's only
atheism and theism.....you figure it out.
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51
"They killed Kenny! You bastards!" Stan & Kyle from South Park
pLaCatEd dOll
e cooper wrote:
> What are the justifications for being an atheist?
Not believing a lie.
For my perrsonal reason see:
http://members.tripod.com/~pLaCatEd_dOll/index-2.html
For a good general over view see:
http://www.erols.com/cygnus6/pageHiero.html
'nuf said
Michelle Malkin
Meaning? Does a religious person have to justify their beliefs or simply
explain them? Why should it be any different for an atheist?
>
>Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
><35975a2b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>> "e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote:
>> >What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>> >
Stix
e cooper posted the following to alt.atheism:
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
That there is no justification for being a theist.
Next!
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
erikc
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 09:58:41 +0100
-- origin: alt.atheism:
>|What are the justifications for being an atheist?
Let's turn it around. What are the justifications for believing in a
god or gods?
Erikc (WA #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
| "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Wightkin
they don't have too. but w/out justification...many ideas are just
that..ideas
Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<3598d2fe...@news.mindspring.com>...
> "Wightkin" <wigh...@fcg.net> wrote:
> >too much science I guess
>
> Meaning? Does a religious person have to justify their beliefs or simply
> explain them? Why should it be any different for an atheist?
>
>
> >
> >Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> ><35975a2b...@news.mindspring.com>...
> >> "e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >What are the justifications for being an atheist?
> >> >
Michelle Malkin
"Wightkin" <wigh...@fcg.net> wrote:
>they don't have too. but w/out justification...many ideas are just
>that..ideas
But, is that what the original poster was asking for? Did he simply want to
know why we are atheists or was he attacking us for being atheists? Why
don't we wait for him to answer this question?
High-fidelity
What are the justifications for being bald? Tall? Short? Fond of pizza?
( High-fidelity / Derek Jensen : triggerhead (at) bigfoot (dot) com )
cz...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Why not?
--
***********************************************************
* *
* | Logic used | Logic not used | *
* -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
* Data used | Science | Empiricism | *
* -----------------|---------------|------------------| *
* Data not used | Rationalism | Mysticism | *
* *
***********************************************************
Randy Day
Wightkin <wigh...@fcg.net> wrote in article
<01bda303$3464e9e0$5bfc1fce@gateway>...
> they don't have too. but w/out justification...many ideas are just
> that..ideas
Including the ones in your holy book...
> Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> <3598d2fe...@news.mindspring.com>...
> > "Wightkin" <wigh...@fcg.net> wrote:
> > >too much science I guess
> > Meaning? Does a religious person have to justify their beliefs or
simply
> > explain them? Why should it be any different for an atheist?
> > >Michelle Malkin <malk...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
> > ><35975a2b...@news.mindspring.com>...
> > >> "e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> >What are the justifications for being an atheist?
> > >> Atheists need no 'justification'. By asking such a question, you
Charles Fiterman
e cooper wrote:
> What are the justifications for being an atheist?
You've asked the right question.
By atheist I simply mean I do not serve or worship
gods or
spirits either good or evil, not that I deny the
existence or
divinity of the Emperor Caligula.
I regard the worship of gods as morally wrong, we
should
stand on our own feet and not grovel before gods.
This is
the century of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, real gods. I
observe
the worship of gods is worse where they exist.
I see that people who involve themselves with the
supernatural
are lucky where nothing happens. Chung Tsu gave the
example
of a wizard calling up a demon being lucky when none
arrives.
Too many people are unlucky.
Religion spreads hate and intolerance. We atheists
can have no
better missionaries than Senator Lott spewing his
hate against
gay people and pretending its love.
Wayne Aiken
Atheism is the initial, default position. It requires no justification.
Until and unless some valid reason for accepting a religious belief
system is forthcoming, there is no reason for accepting that belief
system. Its the same reasoning process that occurs in science; no claim
is accepted until its validity can be demonstrated; the degree to which
it is accepted as probable or true depends on the quality and weight of
the evidence in context with every other piece of knowledge. If a claim
is unsupported, it is never treated as anything other than a claim.
In societies where some particular form of theistic belief is integrated
into its instititions and moral structure, its a common misperception to
think that this dominant religion *is* the default. It isn't. In fact,
those societies must invest large amounts of time, money, and effort
toward inculcating and preserving the belief system- and even then, there
is the constant problem of people who come to realize that these beliefs
are neither necessary nor valid.
--
Holy Temple of Mass $ sl...@ncsu.edu atheist#304 $ "My used underwear
Consumption! $ http://www4.ncsu.edu/~aiken/ $ is legal tender in
PO Box 30904 $ Warning: I hoard pennies $ 28 countries!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 $ ICQ:9763940 Anti-Spam #77 $ --"Bob"
W. Kiernan
e cooper wrote:
>
> What are the justifications for being an atheist?
How about that! A legitimate question on alt.atheism, not even
decorated with insults! OK, here's my answer.
Suppose that you take a look at the theologians who exist in your
country today, and doing so you are overwhelmed by disgust, for they are
obviously nothing but swine, swine with a sinister political program,
swine on the take, swine one and all?
But of course humanity is full of flaws. The fact that most of the
high-visibilty preachers in this benighted nation are animals who belong
in the penitentiary really doesn't affect the question of "God's"
existence. After all, a particular physicist (let's say) could rob the
bank, abuse his children, and watch the Jerry Springer show regularly,
yet that still wouldn't invalidate the law of gravity. Despite our
hypothetical physicist's personal failings, if you hold a stone out at
arm's length and let go, still it falls.
So beyond that: suppose you simply don't believe that this "God" thing
exists? Suppose you are firmly convinced that "God" is a myth, no more
substantial than, say, Emma Bovary, or Don Quixote, or Mickey Mouse?
Suppose you spend three decades reading theological texts, written over
a period of more than two millenia, and the more you read, the deeper
you study, the more firmly you are convinced that the authors are only
talking about a creation of their imaginations?
What would you do then?
Yours WDK - WKie...@concentric.net
** but O that magic feeling; nowhere to go **
** - Lennon/McCartney **
W. Kiernan
Michelle Malkin wrote:
> already condemning us for not agreeing with your beliefs.
No, it was a legitimate question. Please note the lack of insults in
the post, quite an exception in this newsgroup. For all we know, "e
cooper" is an atheist himself. (The chances are still pretty fair that
at some point in this thread "e cooper" will burst out with the usual
hot-headed religionists's defamations, but we can deal with that if and
when it comes.)
Of course it's true that
> Atheists need no 'justification'.
but in that case we are free not to answer.
Yours WDK - WKie...@concentric.net
** Let's ask the first person we see. Let's wheel it out the door **
** and when some freak comes along, we'll ask him. That way we'll **
** get a disheartened viewpoint. Charles Freck **
matab
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 09:58:41 +0100, "e cooper" <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote:
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
Justifications?
Atheism is not a choice, it's the default.
Stop believing in the reality of silly fantasies,
stop being a wishful thinker, and most of all,
stop listening to creeps and their salvation/damnation
nonsense.
Because those are the 'justifications' for being a
non atheist.
Manlio
matab WA #926
Cabrutus
e cooper <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote in article
<6n54h1$rho$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
> What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>
>
>
Mostly that there is no good reason to be a theist.
In addition, strong atheism vs. some gods is justified because of the sound
arguments against their existence.
--
Cabrutus -- alt.atheism atheist #820 -- EAC conspirator #29
loc...@geocities.SPAMMERS.SUCK.PAT.ROBERTSON.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3587/
Michael Allbritton
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
Because I was born an atheist.
Michael
--
customer: "I have Windows 98 on my computer."
tech: "Yes."
customer: "My computer isn't working right."
tech: "Yes. You already told me that."
Get Zapped by the Raygun
http://www.raygun.org
mpb...@raygun.org
Atheist #98
Nick Matthewsen
On Sun, 28 Jun 1998 09:58:41 +0100, e cooper <coo...@breathe.co.uk> wrote:
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
The best reason to not believe in gods is the lack of reasons to
believe in any particular set of gods. Until somebody can produce any
real reason to think gods are real, believing in them is as irrational
as believing in ghosts and pegasi.
Furthermore, nobody seems to have come up with any reason to think
that any set of gods is any more real than any other. Many religions
claim to have miracles. Many theists claim to have subjective
confirmation of the existance of their gods. But as far as anybody
can tell, none of these gods live anywhere but in the minds of their
believers.
[The above assumes, of course, that it is justified not to believe in
things for which there is no reason to believe. If your epistemology
asserts otherwise, then I'm afraid I don't know what to say.]
--
\\ Nick Matthewsen // "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
|| aa 1011011011 || unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its
// Qni...@mit.edu \\ falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact
( Remove Q's to reply. No spam.) which it endeavours to establish" -Hume
Stix
Adam Whiteson posted the following to alt.atheism:
>e cooper wrote:
>>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>I am quite quite disappointed in most of the responses to this query.
Why, because they weren't what you *wanted* to hear?
>Athiesm is NOT the default position.
No, athEIsm is the default position.
> With very rare exception, by the
>time we are old enough to think seriously about these matters, we have
>been taught some kind of religious belief.
Prior to being taught some kind of religious belief you must necessarily
have had NO religious belief. Atheism. *Implicit* atheism.
> Athiests usually become so
>only after an intellectual struggle against the teachings of their
>childhood and their culture. The way is rarely easy.
*Explicit* atheism. One is an *intrinsic* lack of belief, the other is
an *extrinsic* lack of belief. But like it or not, BOTH amount to a LACK
OF THEISM which is the bare-bones definition of *atheism*.
It's really not a difficult concept.
>It may seem to an athiest who is settled in his beliefs that his
>position is so logical and so persuasive as to be self explanatory and
>that he need make no argument in its defense.
Or it may be that there's no justification for theism. Unjustified
beliefs are irrational.
> Many people also
>feel the same kind of smug certainty about their religious beliefs.
But they do so without justification.
>This is all worthless. Complacent certainty is not an argument and
>doesnt convince anyone - it just irritates.
YOU'RE reading the complacent certainty into it; it's your baggage.
If theism cannot be justified there is only one rationally justifiable
position available, and that is NOT TO BELIEVE.
Atheism.
The lack of justification for theism *IS* the justification for atheism.
>After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
>one based on careful reasoning.
Because it is. Just because you don't like it doesn't change what it is.
> Surely, then, when asked to exhibit
>some of these reasons they should be happy to do so rather than
>flapping their wings with indignant sqwuaks of "What ? He DARES to ask
>us to justify our position?"
Heh - you betray your incomprehension.
As long as theism remains unjustified, atheism remains justified.
It's as simple as that.
Adam Whiteson
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
I am quite quite disappointed in most of the responses to this query.
Athiesm is NOT the default position. With very rare exception, by the
time we are old enough to think seriously about these matters, we have
been taught some kind of religious belief. Athiests usually become so
only after an intellectual struggle against the teachings of their
childhood and their culture. The way is rarely easy.
It may seem to an athiest who is settled in his beliefs that his
position is so logical and so persuasive as to be self explanatory and
that he need make no argument in its defense. Many people also
feel the same kind of smug certainty about their religious beliefs.
This is all worthless. Complacent certainty is not an argument and
doesnt convince anyone - it just irritates.
After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
one based on careful reasoning. Surely, then, when asked to exhibit
some of these reasons they should be happy to do so rather than
flapping their wings with indignant sqwuaks of "What ? He DARES to ask
us to justify our position?"
Adam
(remove XXX to reply)
Niall McAuley
ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) writes:
>After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
>one based on careful reasoning.
No, I don't. I'm no genius, and my reasons for atheism seem quite
common-place to me. A 12 year old child should be able to figure
most of my reasoning out for themselves. Many regulars here did
so when they *were* twelve years old, so I'm not proud of the fact
that I was a few years older when I figured it out.
This isn't exactly brain surgery.
>Surely, then, when asked to exhibit some of these reasons they should
>be happy to do so
Large expositions of my rationale for atheism are available in
Dejanews, I feel no urge to repost them on request for every
new bozo who shows up.
It's much more fun to talk with the atheist regulars, who at least
come armed to a battle of wits.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in se, nbot es]
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <3599a228...@news.mci2000.com>, ad...@XXXwhiteson.org wrote:
;Athiesm is NOT the default position. With very rare exception, by the
;time we are old enough to think seriously about these matters, we have
;been taught some kind of religious belief. Athiests usually become so
What you were born with is the *default*, this being a lack of belief in
anything. By being indoctrinated into a religion by a parent, guardian, or
whatever, you have been moved *from* the default into a *non-default*
position.
Mise le meas,
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Darryl L. Pierce, Atheist #1142 | "Those not astonished by quantum |
| Resource Solutions, Int'l @ IBM/RTP | theory have not understood it." |
| (919) 254-4583 (919) 547-7177 | Neils Bohr |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| This message reflects *MY* opinion and not that of my employer. |
| Unsolicited email to this address is acceptance of a $500 per day |
| storage expense to be paid within 30 days of the sending of the email. |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
In article <3599a228...@news.mci2000.com>, Adam Whiteson wrote:
>
>
>Athiesm is NOT the default position. With very rare exception, by the
>time we are old enough to think seriously about these matters, we have
>been taught some kind of religious belief. Athiests usually become so
speak for yourself. theism apeared idiotic to me the first time I heard
it. Let me get this straight: there's this invisible being who's
everywhere, all powerfull and totally undetectable? chyeah!
Puck Greenman
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>
>
You think that we should justify *not* being taken in by a bunch
of silly myths?
Go boil your head!
Answer this for your self:
What are your justifications for not believing in an "Invisable
Pink Unicorn"?
When you have got an answer, that is why we are atheists.
-- ################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here, #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
################################################
Charles Fiterman
Niall McAuley wrote:
> ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) writes:
> >After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
> >one based on careful reasoning.
>
> No, I don't. I'm no genius, and my reasons for atheism seem quite
> common-place to me. A 12 year old child should be able to figure
> most of my reasoning out for themselves. Many regulars here did
> so when they *were* twelve years old, so I'm not proud of the fact
> that I was a few years older when I figured it out.
Suetonius said "If you did not know at age five the gods are made
up things and the myths impossible stories you are a fool." At a
third grade Easter party my daughter said "Between egg laying
rabbits and flying reindeer these people have a poor grip on reality.
And you should see what the holidays commemorate."
When people tell me the world is seven thousand years old and
that God made his only son die on the cross to avenge his own
anger against a man and woman four thousand years dead, I
don't need a lot of careful reasoning to shout drivel.
The claims of religion are emotionally resonant but they are as
silly as they seem.
Jim Sarbeck
In article <6ndk4c$i07s...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl L.
Pierce) wrote:
>
>What you were born with is the *default*, this being a lack of belief in
>anything.
Do you really mean we are born lacking belief? If a belief is represented
and embodied by a particular neural arrangement, then why is it that the
particular neural arrangements with which we are born (and our brains are
buzzing along when we are born, that is known) are called 'lack of
belief'? And people differ one to the next genetically and in their
pre-natal environment. Are you implying that all persons are born with the
same *default* belief? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?
> By being indoctrinated into a religion by a parent, guardian, or
>whatever, you have been moved *from* the default into a *non-default*
>position.
Why is the word 'religion' used here? Why shouldn't it read "By being
indoctrinated into *a belief with which you were not born* by a parent,
guardian, or whatever, you have been moved *from* the default into a
*non-default* position." Then it could be a move from the born-with belief
to any belief that is not the born-with belief. We would not know it was a
move from, or merely reinforcement of, the existing default belief unless
we can know the born-with belief (neural arrangement, and what belief it
represents) of an individual.
I will be away until July 7.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Adam Whiteson
Your daughter must be very bright. She shows a rather sophisticated
grasp of sentence structure - much beyond what one would expect from
an average third grader. For myself, I was born an illiterate slob
who shit in his pants whenever the urge came. I had no opinions on
God or the meaning of existence and I didn't give fig. All I cared
about was eating. When I did grow up enough to consider such things,
I did not "achieve" athiesm- not as a child nor even as a teenager.
And this despite the fact that my parents made no attempt at religious
instruction.
To say that athiesm is the "default position" is to pretend that we
are born with this opinion or to propose that we should be allowed to
grow up without being influenced by our parents and society.
No one knows for sure what conclusions we would come to if we grew up
in a world devoid of any religious teaching or religious culture. My
guess, based on the behavior of human societies everywhere, is that we
would invent a religion and most of us would believe in it fervently.
Evolution is a sophisticated idea that eluded the best minds for
thousands of years. Even today, many people even among those that
espouse the theory of evolution (actually its not many but most)
dont really understand it. Without this idea, the natural world of
living creatures and man himself seem to make a very strong case for
the "Argument from design".
Now I am not making the argument from design. I am just saying that
it is more compelling than has been allowed in this thread and that
the arguments needed to dismiss the evidence are rather sophisticated
and could use a bit of patient explanation.
Suetonius may dismiss us as fools. But this is not helpful.
Clearly, there are compelling reasons why people the world over
believe in their religions and this means a convincing argument must
be made if they are to see another point of view. Just dismissing
people with "It's obvious, fool!" may be satisfying but it doesnt
make the case.
Adam
***************************************************************************************
I believe in robust but civil debate. I stop reading any post in
which I find an abusive comment or a personal attack.
***************************************************************************************
Darryl L. Pierce
In article <cjplace-ya0240800...@news.batnet.com>, cjp...@batnet.nospam.com (Jim Sarbeck) wrote:
;Do you really mean we are born lacking belief? If a belief is represented
Lacking a belief in religion/god(s). Please read the thread before responding.
;pre-natal environment. Are you implying that all persons are born with the
;same *default* belief? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?
I did *not* say this. I said that people are born with *NO* beliefs, and this
is the default "belief system". Do try to keep up, mate.
;Why is the word 'religion' used here? Why shouldn't it read "By being
Read the thread and maybe you'll understand. The claim was made that a lack of
belief in god(s) is *not* a default state of being. I was explaining that you
are *not* born believing in god(s), that you have to be taught this belief,
which moves you *away* from the default state.
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
In article <359a822c...@news.mci2000.com>, Adam Whiteson wrote:
>
>To say that athiesm is the "default position" is to pretend that we
>are born with this opinion or to propose that we should be allowed to
>grow up without being influenced by our parents and society.
What opinion? Atheism (note spelling) is a lack of a particular belief.
Peter Kirby
Jim Sarbeck wrote:
>
> In article <6ndk4c$i07s...@raleigh.ibm.com>, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl L.
> Pierce) wrote:
>
> >anything.
>
> Do you really mean we are born lacking belief? If a belief is represented
> particular neural arrangements with which we are born (and our brains are
> buzzing along when we are born, that is known) are called 'lack of
> belief'? And people differ one to the next genetically and in their
> same *default* belief? If so, on what basis do you make that claim?
I don't think that Pierce is saying anything to the effect that a newborn has
a brain-state representation of the statement "I don't believe in gods."
What he could argue, though, is that we are born *without* (i.e. lacking)
a brain-state representation of any statement concerning "gods." The gods
are among some of the more abstract and language-parisitic beliefs out there
(unlike, say: When Hungry, Don't Eat Yourself!), which is why indoctrination
is encouraged from cradle to grave to spread the god-meme (being that it is
difficult to convince a rational, critical adult without the mystical seed
being sown in youth).
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/ (updated 5/23/98)
Adam Whiteson
Opinion: A personal view, attitude or appraisal / Random house.
Atheism fits this definition.
Adam
maff91
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 19:21:10 GMT, ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson)
wrote:
>To say that athiesm is the "default position" is to pretend that we
>are born with this opinion or to propose that we should be allowed to
>grow up without being influenced by our parents and society.
>
>No one knows for sure what conclusions we would come to if we grew up
>in a world devoid of any religious teaching or religious culture. My
>guess, based on the behavior of human societies everywhere, is that we
>would invent a religion and most of us would believe in it fervently.
>
>
>Evolution is a sophisticated idea that eluded the best minds for
>thousands of years. Even today, many people even among those that
>espouse the theory of evolution (actually its not many but most)
>dont really understand it. Without this idea, the natural world of
>living creatures and man himself seem to make a very strong case for
>the "Argument from design".
>
>Now I am not making the argument from design. I am just saying that
>it is more compelling than has been allowed in this thread and that
>the arguments needed to dismiss the evidence are rather sophisticated
>and could use a bit of patient explanation.
Talk Origin Archive deals with all the issues you have raised.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Chani
Stix wrote in message <359ae3cb...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>e cooper posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
>>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>
>That there is no justification for being a theist.
>
>Next!
Darn, these are just getting to easy!
Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
Chani
Niall McAuley wrote in message <6ndgin$2...@newstoo.ericsson.se>...
>ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) writes:
>>After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
>>one based on careful reasoning.
>
>No, I don't. I'm no genius, and my reasons for atheism seem quite
>common-place to me. A 12 year old child should be able to figure
>most of my reasoning out for themselves. Many regulars here did
>so when they *were* twelve years old, so I'm not proud of the fact
>that I was a few years older when I figured it out.
>
>This isn't exactly brain surgery.
>
>>Surely, then, when asked to exhibit some of these reasons they should
>>be happy to do so
>
>Large expositions of my rationale for atheism are available in
>Dejanews, I feel no urge to repost them on request for every
>new bozo who shows up.
>
>It's much more fun to talk with the atheist regulars, who at least
>come armed to a battle of wits.
Armed? We were supposed to be armed? Why don't you people put this stuff
in the memo! Darn it, where did that rapier wit go? Oh there you are, a
bit rusty, but still useable!
Atheist #1118 reporting for battle, Sir!
Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
>--
Niall McAuley
Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> writes:
>I don't think that Pierce is saying anything to the effect that a newborn has
>a brain-state representation of the statement "I don't believe in gods."
>What he could argue, though, is that we are born *without* (i.e. lacking)
>a brain-state representation of any statement concerning "gods."
It is at least possible that worship of gods is a transferance of
the emotions felt by infants and toddlers towards their parents. In
other words, it is possible that all of us believed our parents were
"gods" when we were in the cradle.
I'm not advancing this as a theory I believe myself, but it
does mean that a kind of "religion" might be the default state
for infants, which could help explain the prevalence of what we
recognize as religion in adults.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in se, not es]
Tony Quirke
Adam Whiteson <ad...@XXXwhiteson.org> wrote:
> For myself, I was born an illiterate slob who shit in his pants whenever
> the urge came.
Were we ever roommates back in university ?
Wait a minute - you implied you grew out of it. Never mind.
- Tony Q.
--
"The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the
effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside
context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the
love, or just the appreciation, of weapons was a kind of tragedy." - IB
Andrew Berry
In article <359ad4a4...@news.mci2000.com>, Adam Whiteson
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Some people may also be of
the opinion that gods do not exist, but the only requirement for
atheism is to lack belief, regardless of the reasons for doing so.
Thus, newborn babies are indeed atheists; they are implicit atheists
because they lack knowledge of any gods. They have no opinion on the
subject, but they are still atheists.
Explicit atheism will often involve an opinion ("it is my opinion that
there are no gods"), but not implicit atheism. Therefore atheism in
general does _not_ fit your definition.
Cheers,
--
Andrew Berry (and...@metallinks.com), atheist #1141
http://www.metallinks.com/
There's nothing a god can give to me that I can't give to myself
Adam Whiteson
On 1 Jul 1998 14:20:07 GMT, eei...@eei.ericsson.es (Niall McAuley)
wrote:
>ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) writes:
>>After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
>>one based on careful reasoning.
>
>No, I don't. I'm no genius, and my reasons for atheism seem quite
>common-place to me. A 12 year old child should be able to figure
>most of my reasoning out for themselves. Many regulars here did
>so when they *were* twelve years old, so I'm not proud of the fact
>that I was a few years older when I figured it out.
>
>This isn't exactly brain surgery.
>
A child may be convinced while adults might doubt. It is quite
possible to have a settled opinion just because one doesn't understand
the problems. Children often do this.
Many very intelligent, well educated people who have thought seriously
about the question, are NOT athiests. I am not saying that they are
right - just that it is not so cut and dried.
>>Surely, then, when asked to exhibit some of these reasons they should
>>be happy to do so
>
>Large expositions of my rationale for atheism are available in
>Dejanews, I feel no urge to repost them on request for every
>new bozo who shows up.
>
How about a just /short/ summary of the atheist's position? Or even
just links to one of the several websites with excellent pages on
atheism? No one had the courtesy even to offer this much. After all
this IS a group where atheism is to be discussed. The question was a
legitimate one.
And those people who were too tired to do even this much, could just
have said nothing at all. Instead there were a lot of very testy
responses that gave no useful information but made it clear that the
question was unwelcome.
In my opinion, when one finds oneself annoyed at having to explain
one's position this is a danger sign. It suggests that one has become
complacent in one's thinking and is no longer willing to be open to
questions and to do the work maintain a rational position.
>It's much more fun to talk with the atheist regulars, who at least
>come armed to a battle of wits.
Yes it's always more pleasant to hang out with people who think the
same way. However, this encourages a certain lazy habits of
thought. It is not nearly as useful as testing ones ideas with people
who are not sympathetic and will make you work for every step.
As for rapier wit: The tone of this news group seems to be mostly ill
tempered personal attacks.
Adam
Niall McAuley
"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> writes:
>Niall McAuley wrote in message <6ndgin$2...@newstoo.ericsson.se>...
>>come armed to a battle of wits.
>Armed? We were supposed to be armed? Why don't you people put this stuff
>in the memo! Darn it, where did that rapier wit go?
Rapier wit ? This is the end of the twentieth century !
I'm using a laser sighted under-and-over twin barrelled wit, with
a 7.62 mm floating breech pulse rifle firing caseless one-liners on
top, and a 40mm explosive gag launcher underneath.
For backup I've got a 14mm pump shotgun firing flechette rounds with
10 barbed comments in each, which can also shoot sabot ego-piercing
rounds.
Of course when all else fails, there's always the trusty flamethrower,
which I've strapped to my pulse rifle with duct tape in the approved
style.
maff91
On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 13:52:58 GMT, ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson)
wrote:
>On 1 Jul 1998 14:20:07 GMT, eei...@eei.ericsson.es (Niall McAuley)
>wrote:
>
>>ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) writes:
>>>After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
>>>one based on careful reasoning.
>>
>>No, I don't. I'm no genius, and my reasons for atheism seem quite
>>common-place to me. A 12 year old child should be able to figure
>>most of my reasoning out for themselves. Many regulars here did
>>so when they *were* twelve years old, so I'm not proud of the fact
>>that I was a few years older when I figured it out.
>>
>>This isn't exactly brain surgery.
>>
>
>A child may be convinced while adults might doubt. It is quite
>possible to have a settled opinion just because one doesn't understand
>the problems. Children often do this.
>
>Many very intelligent, well educated people who have thought seriously
>about the question, are NOT athiests. I am not saying that they are
>right - just that it is not so cut and dried.
Yes. People believe in many stupid things. Religion is not the only
stupid thing.
>
>
>>>Surely, then, when asked to exhibit some of these reasons they should
>>>be happy to do so
>>
>>Large expositions of my rationale for atheism are available in
>>Dejanews, I feel no urge to repost them on request for every
>>new bozo who shows up.
>>
>
>How about a just /short/ summary of the atheist's position? Or even
>just links to one of the several websites with excellent pages on
>atheism? No one had the courtesy even to offer this much. After all
>this IS a group where atheism is to be discussed. The question was a
>legitimate one.
Try http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/
>
>And those people who were too tired to do even this much, could just
>have said nothing at all. Instead there were a lot of very testy
>responses that gave no useful information but made it clear that the
>question was unwelcome.
>
>In my opinion, when one finds oneself annoyed at having to explain
>one's position this is a danger sign. It suggests that one has become
>complacent in one's thinking and is no longer willing to be open to
>questions and to do the work maintain a rational position.
No. Not really. You can see all at the web site.
>
>>It's much more fun to talk with the atheist regulars, who at least
>>come armed to a battle of wits.
>
>
>Yes it's always more pleasant to hang out with people who think the
>same way. However, this encourages a certain lazy habits of
>thought. It is not nearly as useful as testing ones ideas with people
>who are not sympathetic and will make you work for every step.
>
>As for rapier wit: The tone of this news group seems to be mostly ill
>tempered personal attacks.
Well, Theists invade the NG and start attacking the atheists. So, I
would say it say it's only self defence.
>
>Adam
Puck Greenman
In article <cjplace-ya0240800...@news.batnet.com>, Jim
Sarbeck <cjp...@batnet.nospam.com> writes
>Why is the word 'religion' used here?
Because the default that is being discussed is atheism, which,
as I am sure you know, is the lack of belief in god/s, and as
religion is a belief in some form of god/s, then religion fits
perfectly
>Why shouldn't it read "By being
>indoctrinated into *a belief with which you were not born* by a parent,
>guardian, or whatever, you have been moved *from* the default into a
>*non-default* position."
See above.
>Then it could be a move from the born-with belief
>to any belief that is not the born-with belief.
So just what beliefs do you think that babies are born with?
>We would not know it was a
>move from, or merely reinforcement of, the existing default belief unless
>we can know the born-with belief (neural arrangement, and what belief it
>represents) of an individual.
>
You havn't actualy thought about this, have you?
How can a baby, a being, totaly lacking in experiance, have any
sort of belief?
Remember, we are noy talking "disbelief", only "absence" of
belief;
Your wording, while not saying it straight out, hints at
"disbelief", but like "belief", this can only come with
experiance.
-- #################################################
# #
# The spelling, like any opinion stated here, #
# is purely my own. #
# #
# Puck #162 #
# #
# I have made this silly sig file #
# #
# To take up the space I'm due #
# #
# My server tries to censor me #
# #
# He hasn't got a clue #
# #
# I'll do it any way he likes #
# #
# By fair means or by foul #
# #
# I'm gonna change my ISP #
# #
# That'll make make the bugger howl. #
# #
# I say " the server's down again" #
# #
# He claims "no problem" there #
# #
# I say "THE BLOODY SERVER'S DOWN!" #
# #
# He says "it's your software" #
# #
# I've read the online help NGs #
# #
# And their all moaning too #
# #
# "We've got no news, no E'mail" #
# #
# What ever shall we do? #
# #
# #
# I've realy had a gut full #
# #
# So I wrote this little verse #
# #
# And signed with Cableinet #
# #
# Well they can't be any worse #
# #
# #
#################################################
Puck Greenman
>
>Athiesm is NOT the default position.
It aint?
>With very rare exception, by the
>time we are old enough to think seriously about these matters, we have
>been taught some kind of religious belief.
Someone else's religious belief, that does not automaticaly make
it ours.
>Athiests usually become so
>only after an intellectual struggle against the teachings of their
>childhood and their culture.
Not for me, and from the posts that I have read here over the
last several years, I am not by any means alone.
>The way is rarely easy.
The hard part was when I realised that I was an atheist, not
becomming one, I was probably always an atheist.
>
>It may seem to an athiest who is settled in his beliefs that his
>position is so logical and so persuasive as to be self explanatory and
>that he need make no argument in its defense.
Sounds right.
>Many people also
>feel the same kind of smug certainty about their religious beliefs.
Probably.
>This is all worthless.
So?
> Complacent certainty is not an argument and
>doesnt convince anyone - it just irritates.
We aint tryng to convince anybody, we don't give a damn.
>
>After all, athiests pride themselves that their position is a rational
>one based on careful reasoning.
Many, bot not all.
>Surely, then, when asked to exhibit
>some of these reasons
How do you exibit nothing?
>they should be happy to do so rather than
>flapping their wings with indignant sqwuaks of "What ? He DARES to ask
>us to justify our position?"
So quickly do we degenerate to childish insults;
So be it.
I'll tell you what fuck features, you tell me how you would
justify not believing something for which there is no evidence,
and I will then justify it.
Got that?
Cupid Stunt!
Michelle Malkin
ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) wrote:
>On 1 Jul 1998 14:20:07 GMT, eei...@eei.ericsson.es (Niall McAuley)
>wrote:
>
>>ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) writes:
>>>one based on careful reasoning.
>>
>>common-place to me. A 12 year old child should be able to figure
>>most of my reasoning out for themselves. Many regulars here did
>>so when they *were* twelve years old, so I'm not proud of the fact
>>that I was a few years older when I figured it out.
>>
>>This isn't exactly brain surgery.
>>
>
>A child may be convinced while adults might doubt. It is quite
>possible to have a settled opinion just because one doesn't understand
>the problems. Children often do this.
>
>Many very intelligent, well educated people who have thought seriously
>about the question, are NOT athiests. I am not saying that they are
>right - just that it is not so cut and dried.
>
>
>>>be happy to do so
>>
>>Dejanews, I feel no urge to repost them on request for every
>>new bozo who shows up.
>>
>
>How about a just /short/ summary of the atheist's position? Or even
>just links to one of the several websites with excellent pages on
>atheism? No one had the courtesy even to offer this much. After all
>this IS a group where atheism is to be discussed. The question was a
>legitimate one.
>
>have said nothing at all. Instead there were a lot of very testy
>responses that gave no useful information but made it clear that the
>question was unwelcome.
>
>In my opinion, when one finds oneself annoyed at having to explain
>one's position this is a danger sign. It suggests that one has become
>complacent in one's thinking and is no longer willing to be open to
>questions and to do the work maintain a rational position.
>
>>come armed to a battle of wits.
>
>
>Yes it's always more pleasant to hang out with people who think the
>same way. However, this encourages a certain lazy habits of
>thought. It is not nearly as useful as testing ones ideas with people
>who are not sympathetic and will make you work for every step.
>
>As for rapier wit: The tone of this news group seems to be mostly ill
>tempered personal attacks.
>
For information on atheism and links to atheist websites go to:
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Mickey (Michelle Malkin), alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list #1
unnumbered member of the EAC
Rev Mick of the Non-Church Temple of Si & Am (ULC Minister #3)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
I know of no book which has been a source of brutality and sadistic conduct,
both public and private,that compares with the Bible - Lord Paget
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Unasked for e-mail advertisements will be deleted unread.
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Andrew Lias
I do hereby nominate the following quote from Niall McAuley for the July
Atheist Quote of the Month. Do I have a second?
>Rapier wit ? This is the end of the twentieth century ! I'm using a laser
>sighted under-and-over twin barrelled wit, with a 7.62 mm floating breech
>pulse rifle firing caseless one-liners on top, and a 40mm explosive gag
>launcher underneath. For backup I've got a 14mm pump shotgun firing
>flechette rounds with 10 barbed comments in each, which can also shoot
>sabot ego-piercing rounds. Of course when all else fails, there's always
>the trusty flamethrower which I've strapped to my pulse rifle with duct
>tape in the approved style.
--
To reply, just replace "@shell." with "@hotmail.com" | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
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
Peter Kirby
Adam Whiteson wrote:
[snip]
> How about a just /short/ summary of the atheist's position?
Will do. At first sight, 'atheism' may seem to be just another option
floating out in the sea of religious ideologies, and that is (I guess) the
motivation for asking "Why Atheism? Why not Christianity, or Hinduism, or
Wicca, or Deism?" The first thing that you need to know about atheists on
a.a is how we have defined 'atheism'.
Many people come in here telling us what 'atheism' means, usually to set up a
strawman that they consider easy to topple. Some say that 'atheism' means
communism in the tradition of Stalin and Mao, and reject 'atheism' because of
the horrors it brings. Some say that 'atheism' means worshipping Satan or
one's ego, and again reject 'atheism' out of misunderstanding. Some say that
'atheism' means the absolute 100% firm rejection of all gods as a matter of
faith, and again reject 'atheism' based on a misunderstanding of the
position of most atheists. Some atheists may have these opinions, but they
are extraneous and particular to these atheists.
Atheism means simply non-theism, the absence of belief in the existence of
gods. That's how most contemporary atheist philosophers use the term (such
as George Smith and Michael Martin), that definition has been around for
almost as long as the French word atheisme (over 200 years), that's how
ancient atheists such as Epicurus and Lao Tse described themselves (as
'godless' but without the term), and that's how the literal etymological
break-up of a-theism works out: non-theism. I could provide you with
references for all that (and have on a.a, check DejaNews); but if you are
bent on representing our position as atheists a certain way (I'm not saying
that you are), then there's no way I can convince you otherwise. Simply
accept that's how most atheists on a.a define 'atheism', and we aren't going
to get very far if you dissent at the very definition of 'atheism'. If you
must, consider it a game: we've set up the rules so we are going to discuss
this brand of atheism - not communism/satanism/whatever else you may have in
mind - because we call ourselves 'atheists' with this definition in our mind.
There are many motivations, possibly an infinite number, that one could have
for being an atheist. You, presumably, are interested in a defense of
atheism *as a rational position*. While there are many ways to go about that
as well, at least one is common to nearly everyone on alt.atheism. It may be
called "the argument from no evidence."
Most a.a regulars accept some form of a principle of parsimony. There are
two ways that the principle of parsimony can be taken, one strong (or
positive) and one weak (or negative). The strong principle of parsimony
states, "If there is no evidence for a positive belief, disbelieve it." The
weak principle of parsimony states, "If there is no evidence for a belief,
refrain from believing it." These are the rules of engagement that we accept
by and large; if you do not accept some form of the principle of parsimony in
rational inquiry, we may very well not engage. The only alternative
epistemological mechanism proposed for acquiring a belief is 'faith', but as
Nietzche said (paraphrase): "A casual stroll through an asylum will show that
faith proves nothing." A belief does not magically become justified by
calling it 'faith'. While we might dispute what precisely constitutes
'evidence', most of the atheists on a.a accept some form of a principle of
parsimony in intellectual endeavors.
So the first plank in this argument is the principle of parsimony. The
second is, "there is no evidence for theism." This doesn't need to be taken
in an absolute sense (nowhere, nohow is there evidence for theism!); just in
the sense that we, on alt.atheism, have no evidence for theism. Despite the
many attempts at electro-evangelists peddling their goods and trying to use
reasoning as a tool to convert, none have come anywhere near successful in
our estimation. If you haven't heard most of the arguments and refutations
already, Michael Martin has made a rather thorough compilation in _Atheism: A
Philosophical Justification_. I won't burden the reader with them all here,
not least because I don't want to put up strawman arguments. But if you are
going to disagree and say that we do have evidence for theism, we are going
to kindly ask you to "put up or shut up" (or not so kindly, as the case may
be). Remember, it's *we* who have no evidence, so your subjective
interpretations and/or experiences do not count (in court, that's called
"spectral evidence"). Unless you want to provide a well-reasoned argument
for theism at this point, kindly grant that we on a.a know of no good
evidence for theism.
If we believe on the basis of evidence, and theism has none, then the logical
position is to lack belief in theism. And if we lack belief in theism, we
are not theists, we are non-theistic. By our definition, we are atheists.
When they see that the most reasonable position is inescapably and
undeniably to be non-theistic, many theists cry "foul!" at this point. "Why,
of course atheists have faith! They deny God!" Not true, at least not
entirely true. Remember that when we are talking about *atheism*, we are
talking about atheism in itself, not any additions. We are all
equally atheistic, every one of us on the alt.atheism list. None of
us live with deference to the supposed gods, supplicate them in our
prayers, homage them in a church. We do not try to make arguments for
theism, or invoke faith, or do whatever it is that theists do. We do
not need any special justification for being non-theistic. Any further
distinction is irrelevant to atheism. We are all atheists, but nobody is
athier than anyone else. :-)
But some do take their atheism in different directions. To a certain extent,
this depends on the form of the principle of parsimony. With the 'weak' or
'negative' form of the principle of parsimony, one is justified in merely
lacking belief in theism, because there is no evidence for the existence of
gods. With the 'strong' or 'positive' form of the principle of parsimony,
one is justified in rejecting theism as non-veridical, because there is no
evidence for the existence of gods.
Those who accept the 'strong' or 'positive' form of the principle of
parsimony are invariably 'strong atheists' (unless they believe that there is
evidence for theism, in which case they are probably theists). A 'strong
atheist' is simply one who expresses his or her honest opinion on the
non-veridicality of theism; that gods are not real, fictitious,
what-have-you.
There are those, such as myself, who accept the 'weak' or 'negative' form of
the principle of parsimony. On this view, simply the fact that a view has no
evidence is not sufficient to reject it as false. I wrote an essay called
"Proving Negatives" in which I argued that he who asserted must defend his
position, whatever it is. I will not run through the whole debate again, but
generally the 'strong' principle of parsimony is accepted on the pragmatic
grounds that it is impossible to prove a 'negative', or more specifically
that something does not exist. These grounds are false in my opinion; while
it is true that there is no 100% logical, absolute, apodeictic proof about
whether anything exists, it is possible to offer some degree of evidence or
support for 'negative existentials'. Without any grounds for accepting this
'positive' principle, any parsimonious individual would reject it. Besides
which, it implies that we should have believed that there was no Pluto before
we discovered it, that we should believe that there is no life on other
planets now, etc. The 'negative' or 'weak' version of the principle of
parsimony suits me better.
While someone who accepts the 'positive' principle of parsimony will probably
be a 'strong atheist', there is no analogous rule for the 'negative'
principle of parsimony. Many are 'weak atheists', that is, an atheist who
does not pronounce theism as non-true. But some of them, such as myself, are
'strong atheists' who think that it is a reasonable and supportable position
to judge 'gods' as being non-real.
I could write more about *that*, but this post has gone on long enough as it
is. First, I do not expect a theist to accept that there is evidence against
his beliefs in any circumstances (nothing personal, just speaking from
previous experience). When push comes to shove, a theist can just invoke
faith and mystery, or 'You can't even prove there is a computer in front of
you', which just makes the whole exercise pointless. So I prefer to consider
the evidence against theism as an in-house debate among atheists. Second, I
have already posted enough to a.a as it is, and perhaps you can find a few
things on DejaNews. Generally my arguments can be divided along two axes:
the world is natural and the gods are mythology, both of which have been
satisfactorily confirmed to me in my experience and study. Third, and most
importantly, I am a philosopher first, an atheist second, and a strong
disbeliever only after much critical analysis. Atheism in general is a
reasonable position because there is no evidence for theism. I am not
so personally attached to saying something that I would do so 'on faith', so
if pressed, at best this argument could 'convert' me to weak atheism. But I
still wouldn't be going to church, and theistic beliefs will still be
unreasonable, so it isn't very important.
Oh, you wanted a /short/ summary of the atheist's position. :-)
Organic Machinery
In article <359b8b70...@news.mci2000.com>, ad...@XXXwhiteson.org wrote:
>As for rapier wit: The tone of this news group seems to be mostly ill
>tempered personal attacks.
Yeah, well who the fuck gives a shit what you think anyway, asshole?
Oh...wait...
GODDAMNIT!
I screwed up again. :( Sorry.
--Organic Machinery (O.M.)
a.a. atheist #284
Head of EAC Research and Development,
and Asst. Pet Lion Feeder
"'Disintegration' is the best album ever!"
-Kyle, of South Park, CO
Peter Kirby
Second.
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/ (updated 5/23/98)
W. Kiernan
Adam Whiteson wrote:
>
> ...How about a just /short/ summary of the atheist's position? Or
> even just links to one of the several websites with excellent pages on
> atheism? No one had the courtesy even to offer this much. After all
> this IS a group where atheism is to be discussed. The question was a
> legitimate one.
>
> And those people who were too tired to do even this much, could just
> have said nothing at all. Instead there were a lot of very testy
> responses that gave no useful information but made it clear that the
> question was unwelcome.
Darn it.
Here I went to all the trouble of soberly writing, I think, three whole
insult-free paragraphs to answer that legitimate question, and you seem
to have ignored them. Oh boo hoo hoo, I give up. From now on all I'll
do on Usenet is download girlie pix.
Frustratedly yours, WDK - WKie...@concentric.net
...alt.mag.playboy, here I come!
Adam Whiteson
On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:20:44 GMT, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl L.
Pierce) wrote:
>In article <3599a228...@news.mci2000.com>, ad...@XXXwhiteson.org wrote:
>;Athiesm is NOT the default position. With very rare exception, by the
>;time we are old enough to think seriously about these matters, we have
>;been taught some kind of religious belief. Athiests usually become so
>
>What you were born with is the *default*, this being a lack of belief in
>anything. By being indoctrinated into a religion by a parent, guardian, or
>whatever, you have been moved *from* the default into a *non-default*
>position.
>
This idea "one is born an atheist" doesnt make a lot of sense to me.
It is true, that when I was born, I did not believe in God. But when
I was born, I was illiterate, inchorent and made caca in my pants.
My lack of belief was hardly a reasoned position arrived at after
judiciously examining the evidence and the arguments on both sides of
the question. I was an atheist in the sense that a potato is an
atheist - i.e it doesnt believe in God because its too stupid to!
Now surely when we talk about atheism as a position - we mean a
reasoned opinion by someone who knows the issues and is capable of
thinking about them? Surely anything else is of no value?
I dont know at what age a child is capable of such reasoning but a
properly thought out position on athiesm involves concepts such
"Burden of Proof" , "Parsimony", "Occam's Razor" and probably
"Evolution". These are fairly sophisticated ideas and require some
education. By the time a person has acquired the tools to do this job
he has inevitably been infused with all the cultural ideas and
prejudices of his society. This may be good or bad but it is
unavoidable.
What opinion would human beings arrive at if they were given complete
freedom without any cultural biases? The evidence suggests that we
would invent a religion and most people would believe in it fervently.
For surely, if you are an athiest, then you must hold that this was
in fact the history of the human race? That human beings (and human
society) preceded the existence of any church or religion. Yet
despite having started with a clean slate, we find religions every
where and most people are believers.
Adam
Michelle Malkin
ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:20:44 GMT, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl L.
>Pierce) wrote:
>
>>In article <3599a228...@news.mci2000.com>, ad...@XXXwhiteson.org wrote:
>>;Athiesm is NOT the default position. With very rare exception, by the
>>;time we are old enough to think seriously about these matters, we have
>>;been taught some kind of religious belief. Athiests usually become so
>>
>>What you were born with is the *default*, this being a lack of belief in
>>anything. By being indoctrinated into a religion by a parent, guardian, or
>>whatever, you have been moved *from* the default into a *non-default*
>>position.
>>
>
>This idea "one is born an atheist" doesnt make a lot of sense to me.
>It is true, that when I was born, I did not believe in God. But when
>I was born, I was illiterate, inchorent and made caca in my pants.
>My lack of belief was hardly a reasoned position arrived at after
>judiciously examining the evidence and the arguments on both sides of
>the question. I was an atheist in the sense that a potato is an
>atheist - i.e it doesnt believe in God because its too stupid to!
This is the difference between implicit and explicit atheism. One is a
form of atheism that isn't even thought about due to having no
knowledge of gods. That is implicit atheism. When you are old enough
to know about gods and think about whether you want to believe in them
or not or just know that you are simply unable to believe in them,
then you are an explicit atheist. I think of it this way:
Infant - (ignorant of all knowledge, not even really thinking about
it)- I exist. I am the center of the Universe. That's all I know.
Toddler - mommy and daddy know Everything.
Child - mommy and daddy DON'T know Everything. They say that this God
person does and that He's really, really Good. Wow!
Teenager - If mom and dad DON'T know Everything, why should I take
their word or any other adult's for it that God does? There's so much
suffering in the world. How can a Good God allow that? Maybe there is
no God? Yeah, that makes more sense than a Good God doing and allowing
Bad things.
Adult - (after reading tons of books, having lots of discussions with
other people and lots of heavy thought. I'm an atheist, and I have
been ever since I was old enough to understand how ridiculous the God
concept is.
>
>Now surely when we talk about atheism as a position - we mean a
>reasoned opinion by someone who knows the issues and is capable of
>thinking about them? Surely anything else is of no value?
Implicit atheism isn't reached through reasoning. It just is. There is
a lack of knowledge of the God concept, therefore there is no belief
in it. Therefore, all infants are implicit atheists.
>
>I dont know at what age a child is capable of such reasoning but a
>properly thought out position on athiesm involves concepts such
>"Burden of Proof" , "Parsimony", "Occam's Razor" and probably
>"Evolution". These are fairly sophisticated ideas and require some
>education. By the time a person has acquired the tools to do this job
>he has inevitably been infused with all the cultural ideas and
>prejudices of his society. This may be good or bad but it is
>unavoidable.
Most kids are a lot smarter than people give them credit for being. I
was an atheist by the age of 12, in spite of cultural indoctrination.
Other people in this newsgroup came to this conclusion at an even
earlier age. You don't have to be aware of the arguments for and
against atheism to be an atheist. That comes with age and a need to
know that you came to the right conclusion.
>
>What opinion would human beings arrive at if they were given complete
>freedom without any cultural biases? The evidence suggests that we
>would invent a religion and most people would believe in it fervently.
>For surely, if you are an athiest, then you must hold that this was
>in fact the history of the human race? That human beings (and human
>society) preceded the existence of any church or religion. Yet
>despite having started with a clean slate, we find religions every
>where and most people are believers.
>
Try this concept. What opinion would human beings arrive at if they
were given complete freedom without any cultural biases but with a
knowledge of science? My bet is that religion wouldn't even enter the
picture. It wouldn't be needed. That's the difference between a
primitive and a not-primitive culture, though, if we survive the
Atomic Age, I'm certain that future cultures will consider us to be
pretty primitive, too.
>Adam
Adam Whiteson
>ad...@XXXwhiteson.org (Adam Whiteson) wrote:
>>On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 15:20:44 GMT, pda...@us.ibm.com (Darryl L.
>This is the difference between implicit and explicit atheism. One is a
>form of atheism that isn't even thought about due to having no
>knowledge of gods. That is implicit atheism. When you are old enough
>to know about gods and think about whether you want to believe in them
>or not or just know that you are simply unable to believe in them,
>then you are an explicit atheist. I think of it this way:
>[...]
>Implicit atheism isn't reached through reasoning. It just is. There is
>a lack of knowledge of the God concept, therefore there is no belief
>in it. Therefore, all infants are implicit atheists.
>>
In other words, those people who are toos stupid and too ignorant to
think about the question are atheists? Like potoatoes are atheists?
What significance can such "atheism" have. Athiesm claims that it is
THE position one should reach from reasoning about the evidence. Do
atheists really want to ally themselves with those whose opinions are
held in ignorant prejudice , like new born babies, like potatoes?
After all babies dont believe in a lot of stuff which you DO believe.
They dont believe the earth is round or that it revolves around the
sun , they dont believe in the big bang or in evolution. This too is
the "default position". Should we encourage people to remain pure and
innocent as newborn babies and stick with their ignorant prejudices?
> You don't have to be aware of the arguments for and
>against atheism to be an atheist. That comes with age and a need to
>know that you came to the right conclusion.
A person who has reached a conclusion without undestanding the
arguments has little to be proud of. He has settled for ignorant
prejudice in place of understanding. The fact that his conclusion is
one that we might agree with doesnt redeem him. The same sloppy
process could have led him to becom a Jehovah's witness. It is better
to conclude that one doesnt know enought to decide than to adopt some
poorly understood position.
>[...]
>Try this concept. What opinion would human beings arrive at if they
>were given complete freedom without any cultural biases but with a
>knowledge of science? My bet is that religion wouldn't even enter the
>picture.
But this is NOT the default position. This is not the position of a
newborn infant. This is a situation where the child has been exposed
to an education and a culture.
Adam
Adam Whiteson
>In article <359ad4a4...@news.mci2000.com>, Adam Whiteson
><URL:mailto:ad...@XXXwhiteson.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 19:45:07 GMT, TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
>> () wrote:
>> >
>> > What opinion? Atheism (note spelling) is a lack of a particular
>> > belief.
>>
>> Opinion: A personal view, attitude or appraisal / Random house.
>>
>> Atheism fits this definition.
>
>Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Some people may also be of
>the opinion that gods do not exist, but the only requirement for
>atheism is to lack belief, regardless of the reasons for doing so.
>
>Thus, newborn babies are indeed atheists; they are implicit atheists
>because they lack knowledge of any gods. They have no opinion on the
>subject, but they are still atheists.
>
>Explicit atheism will often involve an opinion ("it is my opinion that
>there are no gods"), but not implicit atheism. Therefore atheism in
>general does _not_ fit your definition.
>
By this standard a potato is an athiest since it too does not have any
belief in God. Are we to say that when you are too stupid and too
ignorant to even consider the question you are an athiest, like a
newborn baby - like a potato?
I was under the impression that athiests claim that their position is
the only position one can arrive at after a reasoned examination of
the evidence. That they take pride in this. Athiesm as a product
of ignorant prejudice is worthless - just like any other unreasoned
position.
Adam
Chani
Andrew Lias wrote in message <6ngugm$djq$1...@shell1.ncal.verio.com>...
>I do hereby nominate the following quote from Niall McAuley for the July
>Atheist Quote of the Month. Do I have a second?
>
>>Rapier wit ? This is the end of the twentieth century ! I'm using a laser
>>sighted under-and-over twin barrelled wit, with a 7.62 mm floating breech
>>pulse rifle firing caseless one-liners on top, and a 40mm explosive gag
>>launcher underneath. For backup I've got a 14mm pump shotgun firing
>>flechette rounds with 10 barbed comments in each, which can also shoot
>>sabot ego-piercing rounds. Of course when all else fails, there's always
>>the trusty flamethrower which I've strapped to my pulse rifle with duct
>>tape in the approved style.
I will second that!
I also must say that I am woefully underarmed! ;-)
Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
>
Michelle Malkin
"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>
>Andrew Lias wrote in message <6ngugm$djq$1...@shell1.ncal.verio.com>...
>>I do hereby nominate the following quote from Niall McAuley for the July
>>Atheist Quote of the Month. Do I have a second?
>>
>>>Rapier wit ? This is the end of the twentieth century ! I'm using a laser
>>>sighted under-and-over twin barrelled wit, with a 7.62 mm floating breech
>>>pulse rifle firing caseless one-liners on top, and a 40mm explosive gag
>>>launcher underneath. For backup I've got a 14mm pump shotgun firing
>>>flechette rounds with 10 barbed comments in each, which can also shoot
>>>sabot ego-piercing rounds. Of course when all else fails, there's always
>>>the trusty flamethrower which I've strapped to my pulse rifle with duct
>>>tape in the approved style.
>
>I will second that!
>
>I also must say that I am woefully underarmed! ;-)
Ya mean, two aren't enough? You don't want to end up looking like a
Hindu idol, would you? ;)
Mickey
>
>Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
>The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
>c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
>The atheist map is located at
>http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
>Sign my guest book at:
>http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
>*****************************************************
>I can only please one person per day. Today
>Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
>either.
>
>Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
>get along with out it.
>*****************************************************
>>
>>--
>>To reply, just replace "@shell." with "@hotmail.com" | Siste viator
>>*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
>>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
>>
>
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by
the wise as false and by rulers as useful - Seneca
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Change 'babylon5' to 'mindspring' in e-mail address
bob
Michelle Malkin wrote in message <35a321d3...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>>
>>I also must say that I am woefully underarmed! ;-)
>
>Ya mean, two aren't enough? You don't want to end up looking like a
>Hindu idol, would you? ;)
But maybe she's a thalidomide baby and really IS underarmed? 8^)
She may be, right now, painstakingly pecking posts out with her tongue. No,
come to think of it, she mentioned chat groups, which generally aren't
patient enough for that slow of response.
Never mind.
Rev. bob
AA#8
AAM#8
EAC#88
"Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated out of
nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing -- with 'obscenity' and 'indecent
exposure' fighting it out for second and third place."
Lazarus Long, from Time Enough For Love - R. Heinlein
Chani
bob wrote in message <35a1843b.0@bigdog>...
>
>Michelle Malkin wrote in message <35a321d3...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I also must say that I am woefully underarmed! ;-)
>>
>>Ya mean, two aren't enough? You don't want to end up looking like a
>>Hindu idol, would you? ;)
>
>But maybe she's a thalidomide baby and really IS underarmed? 8^)
>
>She may be, right now, painstakingly pecking posts out with her tongue.
No,
>come to think of it, she mentioned chat groups, which generally aren't
>patient enough for that slow of response.
Bob you are on to me! I am a very quick tongue typist! :-)
Adam Whiteson
<ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>Adam Whiteson wrote:
>[snip]
>> How about a just /short/ summary of the atheist's position?
>
>Will do.
Thankyou for your patient (and not so short) exposition of atheism.
I am taking the liberty of reposting it in reply to the original post
(Why atheism) where it belongs.
Adam
Adam Whiteson
wrote:
I am repoosting Peter Kirby's exposition of atheism here where it
properly belongs.
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
>
>
Adam Whiteson wrote:
[snip]
> How about a just /short/ summary of the atheist's position?
Will do. At first sight, 'atheism' may seem to be just another option
Oh, you wanted a /short/ summary of the atheist's position. :-)
Atheist Man
>What are the justifications for being an atheist?
What's there to justify? There's no god. Never was, never will be. It's flat
out impossible.
Why would I need anything more than that?
Have a great godless day!
________________________
Atheist Man
Atheist #1190 BAAWA!!!
High Priest of the Church of Hawking
Atheist Minister #5
(ath...@atheist.com)
==================================
"People don't want truth, they want certainty." -- James P. Hogan
==================================
Chani
Organic Machinery wrote in message <6nh4kb$2vo$1...@news1.ucsd.edu>...
>In article <359b8b70...@news.mci2000.com>, ad...@XXXwhiteson.org
wrote:
>
>>As for rapier wit: The tone of this news group seems to be mostly ill
>>tempered personal attacks.
>
>Yeah, well who the fuck gives a shit what you think anyway, asshole?
>
>Oh...wait...
>
>GODDAMNIT!
>
>I screwed up again. :( Sorry.
Hey now! We've discussed this before Organic! Now what were you told?
Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chani
Adam Whiteson wrote in message <359d3b50....@news.mci2000.com>...
<snip>
>
>In other words, those people who are toos stupid and too ignorant to
>think about the question are atheists? Like potoatoes are atheists?
Hate to burst your bubble, but potatoes are not people, nor are they
thinking entities. Also, all atheist means is to be without a belief in
god, so if a person who is too "stupid and too ignorant" to think about the
question then yes they are atheists; solely because they lack theism. Of
course to tell the truth the uneducated and the ignorant tend to fall into
theism. In fact from my experience theism preys upon those very
individuals.
>
>What significance can such "atheism" have. Athiesm claims that it is
>THE position one should reach from reasoning about the evidence. Do
>atheists really want to ally themselves with those whose opinions are
>held in ignorant prejudice , like new born babies, like potatoes?
Many atheists do come to their understanding through evidence and reason,
but some are raised in it. It matter's not how one accepted the facts.
What is important is that there exists no evidence to support a god, and
many atheists realize that. Just because one has not be subjected to
theist delusion does not make them less of an atheist. I don't mind
allying myself with other atheists in this subject no matter how they came
about their understanding.
>
>After all babies dont believe in a lot of stuff which you DO believe.
>They dont believe the earth is round or that it revolves around the
>sun , they dont believe in the big bang or in evolution. This too is
>the "default position". Should we encourage people to remain pure and
>innocent as newborn babies and stick with their ignorant prejudices?
No sir, but they also don't believe the earth is flat or that the earth
arose from the spoken word of a fictional character. You seem confused with
the issue, so I shall repeat it once again. All atheism is a lack of
theism. Also, atheism doesn't encourage people to maintain ignorant
prejudices, that sir is theism which is mostly based upon ignorant
prejudices.
>
>> You don't have to be aware of the arguments for and
>>against atheism to be an atheist. That comes with age and a need to
>>know that you came to the right conclusion.
>
>A person who has reached a conclusion without undestanding the
>arguments has little to be proud of. He has settled for ignorant
>prejudice in place of understanding. The fact that his conclusion is
>one that we might agree with doesnt redeem him. The same sloppy
>process could have led him to becom a Jehovah's witness. It is better
>to conclude that one doesnt know enought to decide than to adopt some
>poorly understood position.
Once again an atheist is one who does not have a belief in a god. It
matters not how that individual came upon that understanding. There is no
need of redemption here; that is a religious concept. A person needs to
come to his/her own conclusions, and should those conclusions support
atheism then all the better. You are correct in your thinking that
ignorance can lead to theism; it explains why children believe so easily in
a higher being; it also most likely the reason that children are
indoctrinated early.
>
>>[...]
>>Try this concept. What opinion would human beings arrive at if they
>>were given complete freedom without any cultural biases but with a
>>knowledge of science? My bet is that religion wouldn't even enter the
>>picture.
>
>
>But this is NOT the default position. This is not the position of a
>newborn infant. This is a situation where the child has been exposed
>to an education and a culture.
This is true enough. But I do agree with Mickey's position. Atheism is the
default position only because all atheism is is a lack of theism. Anyone
who does not have a belief in a higher power or being is an atheist; thus
those who have not been exposed to theism, and therefore lack a belief in a
god is an atheist.
Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
>
>Adam
bob
Chani wrote in message <6ns4c7$e...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>bob wrote in message <35a1843b.0@bigdog>...
>>come to think of it, she mentioned chat groups, which generally aren't
>>patient enough for that slow of response.
>
>Bob you are on to me! I am a very quick tongue typist! :-)
Ahhhh? But are you a touch-tongue typist? Or do you have to stare
crosseyed at each key?
Rev. bob
AA#8
AAM#8
EAC#88
"Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated out of
nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing -- with 'obscenity' and 'indecent
exposure' fighting it out for second and third place."
Lazarus Long, from Time Enough For Love - R. Heinlein
>
>Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
>The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
>c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
>The atheist map is located at
>http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
>Sign my guest book at:
>http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
>*****************************************************
>I can only please one person per day. Today
>Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
>either.
>
>Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
>get along with out it.
>*****************************************************
>>
>>Never mind.
>>
>>Rev. bob
>>AA#8
>>AAM#8
>>EAC#88
>>
>>"Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated out of
>>nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing -- with 'obscenity' and 'indecent
>>exposure' fighting it out for second and third place."
>>
>> Lazarus Long, from Time Enough For Love - R. Heinlein
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Mickey
>>>>
>>>>Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
>>>>The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
>>>>c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
>>>>The atheist map is located at
>>>>http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
>>>>Sign my guest book at:
>>>>http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
>>>>*****************************************************
>>>>I can only please one person per day. Today
>>>>Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>>Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
>>>>get along with out it.
>>>>*****************************************************
>>>>>
Chani
bob wrote in message <35a2cb6e.0@bigdog>...
<snip>
>>
>>Bob you are on to me! I am a very quick tongue typist! :-)
>
>Ahhhh? But are you a touch-tongue typist? Or do you have to stare
>crosseyed at each key?
You got me! I stare crosseyed at the keys, but then I am normally
crosseyed! Men like that you know, makes certain appendages appear larger
than they are! ;-)
Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
>
>Rev. bob
>AA#8
>AAM#8
>EAC#88
>
>"Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated out of
>nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing -- with 'obscenity' and 'indecent
>exposure' fighting it out for second and third place."
>
> Lazarus Long, from Time Enough For Love - R. Heinlein
<snip>
Chani
Landis D. Ragon wrote in message <6nuj2d$gnv$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>...
<35a321d3...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>>"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I also must say that I am woefully underarmed! ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Ya mean, two aren't enough? You don't want to end up looking like a
>>>>Hindu idol, would you? ;)
>>>
>>>But maybe she's a thalidomide baby and really IS underarmed? 8^)
>>>
>>>She may be, right now, painstakingly pecking posts out with her tongue.
>>No,
>>>patient enough for that slow of response.
>>
>>
>>
>
>somewhere, but I'm too nice a guy to even think about it.
Well it seems that you have already thought of it! You very naughty boy,
you! ;-)
Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
>
> :-)
>
>Landis D. Ragon
>Chief Elf in the toy factory...
>
Landis D. Ragon
>
>bob wrote in message <35a1843b.0@bigdog>...
>>
>>Michelle Malkin wrote in message <35a321d3...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I also must say that I am woefully underarmed! ;-)
>>>
>>>Ya mean, two aren't enough? You don't want to end up looking like a
>>>Hindu idol, would you? ;)
>>
>>But maybe she's a thalidomide baby and really IS underarmed? 8^)
>>
>>She may be, right now, painstakingly pecking posts out with her tongue.
>No,
>>come to think of it, she mentioned chat groups, which generally aren't
>>patient enough for that slow of response.
>
>Bob you are on to me! I am a very quick tongue typist! :-)
>
>
Hmmmm? Chani... Tongue... Talent... There's a really nasty joke there
somewhere, but I'm too nice a guy to even think about it.
:-)
Organic Machinery
>By this standard a potato is an athiest since it too does not have any
>belief in God. Are we to say that when you are too stupid and too
>ignorant to even consider the question you are an athiest, like a
>newborn baby - like a potato?
Right!
>I was under the impression that athiests claim that their position is
>the only position one can arrive at after a reasoned examination of
>the evidence. That they take pride in this.
Right again.
>Athiesm as a product
>of ignorant prejudice is worthless - just like any other unreasoned
>position.
Right again. Sort of. Discussing the atheism, apoliticalism, amorality, etc.
of potatoes and newborn infants probably isn't all that worthwhile.
Of course, an intelligent being who has never heard of the concept of "gods"
or the "supernatural" is an atheist, and isn't necessarily unreasonable, nor
is his position worthless. His worldview is based on everything he has
observed.
This, I believe, was the reason beyond the "implicit" and "explicit"
distinction.
bob
Chani wrote in message <6nutjg$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>bob wrote in message <35a2cb6e.0@bigdog>...
><snip>
>>>
>>
>>crosseyed at each key?
>
>You got me! I stare crosseyed at the keys, but then I am normally
>crosseyed! Men like that you know, makes certain appendages appear larger
>than they are! ;-)
Well, to keep this in tune with alt.atheism, maybe this helps to refute the
Adam/Eve/snake story. Eve was crosseyed. There was no snake; just Adam's
skin-flute.
Rev. bob
AA#8
AAM#8
EAC#88
"Of all the strange 'crimes' that human beings have legislated out of
nothing, 'blasphemy' is the most amazing -- with 'obscenity' and 'indecent
exposure' fighting it out for second and third place."
Lazarus Long, from Time Enough For Love - R. Heinlein
>
>Chani, Atheist #1118; ULC minister #19
>The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
>c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
>The atheist map is located at
>http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
>Sign my guest book at:
>http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
>*****************************************************
>I can only please one person per day. Today
>Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
>either.
>
>Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
>get along with out it.
>*****************************************************
>>
Chani
bob wrote in message <35a42244.0@bigdog>...
>
>Chani wrote in message <6nutjg$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>bob wrote in message <35a2cb6e.0@bigdog>...
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Bob you are on to me! I am a very quick tongue typist! :-)
>>>
>>>Ahhhh? But are you a touch-tongue typist? Or do you have to stare
>>>crosseyed at each key?
>>
>>You got me! I stare crosseyed at the keys, but then I am normally
>>crosseyed! Men like that you know, makes certain appendages appear larger
>>than they are! ;-)
>
>Well, to keep this in tune with alt.atheism, maybe this helps to refute the
>Adam/Eve/snake story. Eve was crosseyed. There was no snake; just Adam's
>skin-flute.
Now there is a thought! ;-)
Therion Ware
saying in <6nutjg$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
>
>bob wrote in message <35a2cb6e.0@bigdog>...
><snip>
>>>
>>>Bob you are on to me! I am a very quick tongue typist! :-)
>>
>>Ahhhh? But are you a touch-tongue typist? Or do you have to stare
>>crosseyed at each key?
>
>You got me! I stare crosseyed at the keys, but then I am normally
>crosseyed! Men like that you know, makes certain appendages appear larger
>than they are! ;-)
My nose is quite large enough as it is, thank you. Still, you know
what they say about men with large noses?
They use big handkerchiefs....
Speaking of which, you now what they say about bald men?
They haven't got any hair...
-----
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis, and it's Pandemonium; for "why this is Hell, nor am I out of it".
------ ------
Visit The City of Dis at: <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/index.html>
Evil Atheist Conspiracy : <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/eac/eac-oath.html>
Alt.Athesim Twit List : <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/6671/aatwit/aatwit.html>
------
remove .eac from address to send email. Site updated: 22 May 1998 - 09:00 GMT.
E.A.C. Member #81 - AA: #422 (ag).
Chani
Organic Machinery wrote in message <35A533...@yahoo.com>...
<snip>
>>
>> Hey now! We've discussed this before Organic! Now what were you told?
>
>now on. I promise.
No, no, about the cussing thing. You aren't using the f word enough again.
Darn it, we are atheists and we are profane! (Darn it, I am still not
getting it right!) ;-)
Chani, Atheist #1118; Slave Girl # 1; ULC minister #19
The Holy See-the Church Of Fantome Scientists; NIrfur High Priest # 2;
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net : ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
I can only please one person per day. Today
Is not your day; Tomorrow isn't looking good
either.
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along with out it.
*****************************************************
>
>--
>
>--Organic Machinery (O.M.)
> a.a. atheist #284
> Head of EAC Research and Development,
> and Asst. Pet Lion Feeder
>
> "When I am king you will be first against the wall."
> -Radiohead
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Remove the obvious, and the Z's, to contact me via email
>--------------------------------------------------------
Don Antropos
>
>Organic Machinery wrote in message <35A533...@yahoo.com>...
><snip>
>>>
>>> Hey now! We've discussed this before Organic! Now what were you told?
>>
>>Oh, yes. Sorry, I forgot! Screw DOWN, screw DOWN! I'll remember from
>>now on. I promise.
>
>No, no, about the cussing thing. You aren't using the f word enough again.
>Darn it, we are atheists and we are profane! (Darn it, I am still not
>getting it right!) ;-)
>
FUCK.
It's spelled F.U.C.K.
Got it now, Chani?
Maybe you need some practice. ;)
----------------------------------------------------
Rev. Antropos Esq.
(Freethinker)
"Sell your soul for a fortune-cookie."
The alt.atheism related website:
http://www.signature.nl/alt.atheism/
----------------------------------------------------
Chani
Don Antropos wrote in message <35a798c0...@news.cistron.nl>...
>"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Organic Machinery wrote in message <35A533...@yahoo.com>...
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>> Hey now! We've discussed this before Organic! Now what were you told?
>>>
>>>Oh, yes. Sorry, I forgot! Screw DOWN, screw DOWN! I'll remember from
>>>now on. I promise.
>>
>>No, no, about the cussing thing. You aren't using the f word enough
again.
>>Darn it, we are atheists and we are profane! (Darn it, I am still not
>>getting it right!) ;-)
>>
>
>FUCK.
>
>It's spelled F.U.C.K.
>
>Got it now, Chani?
>
>Maybe you need some practice. ;)
Um, Fick, no that's not right, fack, no, no, um fusk, no, um, oh, ah,
fudge? Not quite there. Ah, oh, okay, Tuck. Yeah that is it, :-)
Chani, Atheist #1118; Slave Girl # 1: Nirfur High Priest #2:
ULC Minister #19 The Holy See - Churchh of Fantome Scientists
c.ov...@worldnet.att.net ICQ #12345332
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
Sign my guest book at:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
**********************************************************
"Look, biology is such an inexact science, and for
every step forward we must take 2 in reverse, and
at any rate we said we're sorry, so can we get our
funding back so we can pay our bail and go
home?" -2 gnomish scientests after accidentally
unleashing the phase-shifting doppleganging
firebreathing hyperintellegent
**********************************************************
jim h.
I've taken the opportunity to clarify one or two things, as well
as to change the goalkeeper example.
[tt]Ticktock wrote:
1) What is logically possible for God to know?
i.e. Are we saying that it is possible for him to
know everything else besides future human
decisions?
[jh]No. Suppose someone offers you $100 if you correctly guess, three times
in succession, which closed hand they are holding a coin in.
On my conception of omniscience a deity will not know beforehand
whether you will elect to choose the right or left hand, since this is a free decision
on your part. Secondly the deity cannot know whether you will win the
$100 dollars - this, in response to your question, is an an example of something which
the deity cannot know which is not itself a human decision.
[tt]Assuming you allow angels in your theology,
is it possible for God to know the future decisions
of angels? (If you do not believe in angels, please
ignore this question.)
[jh] Ignored. Also 2a
[tt]3) Is it logically possible for God to know
his *own* future decisions?
[jh]Yes. On the conception of omniscience that I have
presented, I see no reason why this should not be so.
[tt]3a)If so, does God have Free Will?
3b)If so, why is this not a contradiction?
[jh]Because if the deity knows at some time x what his future decisions will
be , this will include knowing if he will 'change his mind' over a particular issue.
The difficulty only arises when we require the deity to know what some other person
will decide to do in the future and that decision to be a free one.
4) When you state that God "allows" there to be free
persons due to his omnipotence, was this a
decision on his part to give up that part of
omniscience which lets him know about
future human decisions? I would tend to
think that it was a conscious decision, since
he probably would have known that it was
logically impossible for him to know future
actions if he granted Free Will.
Yes.
[tt]But the point is that he[God] could not perform an accurate miracle
without knowledge of future human decisions.[snip] .....He might have
seen them approach the
Red Sea and then parted it on the spur of the moment as
part of his miracle. However, he could not *ever* have known
if they would have even gone towards the Red Sea in the
first place. For all he would have known, the Israelites might have
died somewhere else. The miracle in question would have nothing
to do with their choices or free will.
[jh] First of all I should say that I don't think this was an actual miracle, but either
an
interpretation of some natural phenomenon or perhaps some sort of
symbolic explanation. However, more generally, if we imagine
that the deity wishes to perform some miracle but does not have
certain knowledge of how individuals will act, I do not see that this
as an insuperable obstacle. The deity can have a very good knowledge
of how individuals will act based on a knowledge of their psychology etc
-this would be sufficient for him to carry out his purposes. In any case
miracles are seen as exceptional events - as suspensions of the normal
order of things - perhaps free will is suspended in these exceptional cases.
[tt] In answer to your second statement, even knowing that something
"probably" will happen is not good enough. If He didn't know
for *sure* that something was going to happen, and yet
predicted it, prophesied it, etc, then he runs the very real
risk of lying to whoever he told it to. This of course
undermines his moral perfectness. The example I used in
the previous post was the denial of Peter. Jesus said
Peter would deny him three times. Even if Jesus was
pretty sure Peter would do it, Peter might not have done it.
If Peter hadn't, then Jesus would have lied to him.
[jh] I'm not sure that we have to interpret the remark above as a prophecy -
rather it could simply seen as an insightful remark about individual psychology
I don't see either how moral perfection is undermined if the deity
has opted to provide free will ( the provision of which could be see to be of a
higher moral import than his being able to make predictions of 100% accuracy
re human behaviour). The alleged absence of moral perfection could be
understood as stemming logically from the deity's decision to allow
humans free wiill.
[tt]As a minor point, I would like to point out that a God that
was only pretty sure about what was going to happen
loses a lot of authority points. He would be forced
to admit that everything was only likely to happen, but
might not. Given that the Bible is full of positive assertions
that something will most definitely happen, I would
say that God is either lying about some of those events
to us or we don't have free will.
[jh]This again relies on a rather literal interpretation of the Bible.
If one interprets these various prophecies in a non-literal, perhaps
symbolic way, then this objection loses most of its force.
jim h
Don Antropos
>
>Don Antropos wrote in message <35a798c0...@news.cistron.nl>...
>>"Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Organic Machinery wrote in message <35A533...@yahoo.com>...
>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey now! We've discussed this before Organic! Now what were you told?
>>>>
>>>>Oh, yes. Sorry, I forgot! Screw DOWN, screw DOWN! I'll remember from
>>>>now on. I promise.
>>>
>>>No, no, about the cussing thing. You aren't using the f word enough
>again.
>>>Darn it, we are atheists and we are profane! (Darn it, I am still not
>>>getting it right!) ;-)
>>>
>>
>>FUCK.
>>
>>It's spelled F.U.C.K.
>>
>>Got it now, Chani?
>>
>>Maybe you need some practice. ;)
>
>Um, Fick, no that's not right, fack, no, no, um fusk, no, um, oh, ah,
>fudge? Not quite there. Ah, oh, okay, Tuck. Yeah that is it, :-)
>
<pats little girl on the head>
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
As in FFFFish
<looks patiently as girl tries to blow air between lips>
It's FFFFFFFFFFF U CK
Can you say that after me?
FUCK
<shakes head after numerous attempts>
I'm sorry girl, but you're hopeless.
;)
Chani
Don Antropos wrote in message <35ab97cc...@news.cistron.nl>...
Damnshitpissfuck. :-) (wait isn't the right one in there somewhere? ) ;-)
Don Antropos
>Damnshitpissfuck. :-) (wait isn't the right one in there somewhere? ) ;-)
>
She has seen the light!!!!!!!!!!!
Praise be unto the IPU, blessed be her little hooves.
Jim Tims
>I do hereby nominate the following quote from Niall McAuley for the July
>Atheist Quote of the Month. Do I have a second?
>
>>Rapier wit ? This is the end of the twentieth century ! I'm using a laser
>>sighted under-and-over twin barrelled wit, with a 7.62 mm floating breech
>>pulse rifle firing caseless one-liners on top, and a 40mm explosive gag
>>launcher underneath. For backup I've got a 14mm pump shotgun firing
>>flechette rounds with 10 barbed comments in each, which can also shoot
>>sabot ego-piercing rounds. Of course when all else fails, there's always
>>the trusty flamethrower which I've strapped to my pulse rifle with duct
>>tape in the approved style.
Almost 3 weeks and no second? Let me be the first to second, then.
--
Jim Tims (jft...@borg.com)
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges." Beyond the Fringe