Religions > Atheism > [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2007 09:13:02 PM |
| Object: |
[alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing. But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
27 Dec 2007 10:15:59 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing. But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
"Fallacy" I don't think that word means what you think it means.
A request for evidence is not a fallacy, it's a request for evidence to back
up your claims. Without evidence, you're just a guy making bland assertions.
However, arguing that the absence of evidence means the absence of the thing
in question can be a fallacy, but not always.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
No. One does not have to believe either of those to be an atheist. Thus,
they are not dogma.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CortxVortx CortxVortx@restmass" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
29 Dec 2007 06:56:04 PM |
|
|
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a
dogma believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Religion does start war. Not all wars, but it does start war.
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
--
"Evolution can be mean -- there's no 'dumb-*****' vaccine." -- Jimmy
Buffett
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
29 Dec 2007 07:24:16 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass>
wrote:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a
dogma believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Religion does start war. Not all wars, but it does start war.
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
29 Dec 2007 10:25:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:24:16 -0500, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass>
wrote:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
30 Dec 2007 01:18:52 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:55:37 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:24:16 -0500, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass>
wrote:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
30 Dec 2007 03:13:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:18:52 -0500, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:55:37 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:24:16 -0500, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass>
wrote:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup. <G>
Case closed!
The defendent is hereby sentenced to a lifetime of rationality.
Court adjourned!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 04:47:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:18:52 -0500, John Baker wrote:
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup. <G>
It would be incredible if y'all could stay on topic for three whole
cycles. Someone wants to know a couple of reasons WHY I think atheism is
a religion (never mind so does the US Supreme Court and now the UK, which
distinguishes between "none" and "atheism" for your religion).
Well there you go; a proper rebuttal would address that these two very
common dogmas by atheists are not really so common. You might even argue
they are not dogmas (by a "change the meaning of words" attack).
Arguing against the logic is a non-starter. You'll have to do a LOT
better than you have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CortxVortx CortxVortx@restmass" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 07:46:51 PM |
|
|
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.31.22.47.40.819467@orneveien.org:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:18:52 -0500, John Baker wrote:
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never
mind that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a
thing. But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by
atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must
believe that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup.
<G>
It would be incredible if y'all could stay on topic for three whole
cycles. Someone wants to know a couple of reasons WHY I think atheism
is a religion (never mind so does the US Supreme Court and now the UK,
which distinguishes between "none" and "atheism" for your religion).
Well there you go; a proper rebuttal would address that these two very
common dogmas by atheists are not really so common. You might even
argue they are not dogmas (by a "change the meaning of words" attack).
Arguing against the logic is a non-starter. You'll have to do a LOT
better than you have.
Ain't that cute? He thinks we should take him seriously!
--
"Evolution can be mean -- there's no 'dumb-*****' vaccine." -- Jimmy
Buffett
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 07:56:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 19:46:51 -0600, in alt.atheism
CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass> wrote in
<Xns9A17D3661A362wmewatkinsyahoocom@216.196.97.136>:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.31.22.47.40.819467@orneveien.org:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:18:52 -0500, John Baker wrote:
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never
mind that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a
thing. But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by
atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must
believe that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup.
<G>
It would be incredible if y'all could stay on topic for three whole
cycles. Someone wants to know a couple of reasons WHY I think atheism
is a religion (never mind so does the US Supreme Court and now the UK,
which distinguishes between "none" and "atheism" for your religion).
Well there you go; a proper rebuttal would address that these two very
common dogmas by atheists are not really so common. You might even
argue they are not dogmas (by a "change the meaning of words" attack).
Arguing against the logic is a non-starter. You'll have to do a LOT
better than you have.
Ain't that cute? He thinks we should take him seriously!
I'm sure we should, in half a century when he manages to get his facts
and logic correct. Of course, if he got his facts and logic correct, he
would understand why he is currently making a fool of himself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
01 Jan 2008 03:50:19 PM |
|
|
On Dec 31 2007, 5:47 pm, Michael <newsus...@orneveien.org> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:18:52 -0500, John Baker wrote:
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup. <G>
It would be incredible if y'all could stay on topic for three whole
cycles. Someone wants to know a couple of reasons WHY I think atheism is
a religion (never mind so does the US Supreme Court and now the UK, which
distinguishes between "none" and "atheism" for your religion).
Well there you go; a proper rebuttal would address that these two very
common dogmas by atheists are not really so common. You might even argue
they are not dogmas (by a "change the meaning of words" attack).
Arguing against the logic is a non-starter. You'll have to do a LOT
better than you have.
Sorry, son. You don't get to tell us to do better.
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
01 Jan 2008 09:23:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:47:40 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:18:52 -0500, John Baker wrote:
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup. <G>
It would be incredible if y'all could stay on topic for three whole
cycles. Someone wants to know a couple of reasons WHY I think atheism is
a religion
I don't suppose it ever crossed what passes for your mind that perhaps
we simply don't give a damn what you think, or why you think it...
never mind so does the US Supreme Court and now the UK, which
distinguishes between "none" and "atheism" for your religion).
Look up the definition of 'legal fiction', Sunshine.
Well there you go; a proper rebuttal would address that these two very
common dogmas by atheists are not really so common. You might even argue
they are not dogmas (by a "change the meaning of words" attack).
Arguing against the logic is a non-starter.
What logic? I've yet to see any in your posts.
ou'll have to do a LOT
better than you have.
Actually, numbnuts, we don't have to do squat. You, on the other hand,
have your work cut out for you if you expect us to take you seriously.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 04:57:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:47:40 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
<pan.2007.12.31.22.47.40.819467@orneveien.org>:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:18:52 -0500, John Baker wrote:
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Not to mention that asking for evidence is only considered a logical
fallacy by those who can't provide any...
Do you have any evidence for that assertion? ;)
M'lud, I give you Exhibit A: posts from theists in this newsgroup. <G>
It would be incredible if y'all could stay on topic for three whole
cycles. Someone wants to know a couple of reasons WHY I think atheism is
a religion (never mind so does the US Supreme Court and now the UK, which
distinguishes between "none" and "atheism" for your religion).
Since the US Supreme Court does not think atheism is a religion, what is
the point of the rest of your claims?
Well there you go; a proper rebuttal would address that these two very
common dogmas by atheists are not really so common. You might even argue
they are not dogmas (by a "change the meaning of words" attack).
Arguing against the logic is a non-starter. You'll have to do a LOT
better than you have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 04:44:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, CortxVortx wrote:
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
Another one bites the dust. Not for anything serious, but for wasting my
time by your inability to read and comprehend plain English. I don't need
your responses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CortxVortx CortxVortx@restmass" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
02 Jan 2008 08:40:24 PM |
|
|
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.31.22.44.17.31781@orneveien.org:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, CortxVortx wrote:
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
Another one bites the dust. Not for anything serious, but for wasting
my time by your inability to read and comprehend plain English. I
don't need your responses.
"... for wasting my time ..."
Delicious irony!
--
"Evolution can be mean -- there's no 'dumb-*****' vaccine." -- Jimmy
Buffett
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
01 Jan 2008 03:49:29 PM |
|
|
On Dec 31 2007, 5:44 pm, Michael <newsus...@orneveien.org> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, CortxVortx wrote:
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
Another one bites the dust. Not for anything serious, but for wasting my
time by your inability to read and comprehend plain English. I don't need
your responses.
...Then, why are you still posting here, Pink?
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
29 Dec 2007 06:57:14 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, in alt.atheism
CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass> wrote in
<Xns9A15CACC912BEwmewatkinsyahoocom@216.196.97.136>:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a
dogma believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Religion does start war. Not all wars, but it does start war.
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
Michael is in the Navy? With that poor grasp of reality? That is scary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
29 Dec 2007 10:25:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:57:14 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, in alt.atheism
CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass> wrote in
<Xns9A15CACC912BEwmewatkinsyahoocom@216.196.97.136>:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a
dogma believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Religion does start war. Not all wars, but it does start war.
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
Michael is in the Navy? With that poor grasp of reality? That is scary.
Let's hope that the delusional cretin is not in charge of weaponry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
29 Dec 2007 07:24:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:57:14 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:56:04 -0600, in alt.atheism
CortxVortx <CortxVortx@restmass> wrote in
<Xns9A15CACC912BEwmewatkinsyahoocom@216.196.97.136>:
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
news:pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind
that it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
But this fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Since he can't prove that they don't, our brave Navy man must believe
that ALL gods exist, or he's a hypocrite.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a
dogma believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Religion does start war. Not all wars, but it does start war.
Poor Mike is torpedoed in port.
Michael is in the Navy? With that poor grasp of reality? That is scary.
Living proof that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 04:50:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:24:58 -0500, John Baker wrote:
Living proof that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.
Another one bites the dust. I had hoped for some "on topic" discussion
from you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stan-O" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
27 Dec 2007 09:42:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:13:02 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing. But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Bonus dogma? I'll trade that for what's behind door #2...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
28 Dec 2007 08:39:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:13:02 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
How do you figure?
But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Really? Who defined them as such, and who compels belief in them?
Methinks you're more than a bit confused.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
28 Dec 2007 04:00:01 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:39:57 -0500, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:13:02 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing.
How do you figure?
But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Really? Who defined them as such, and who compels belief in them?
Methinks you're more than a bit confused.
He knows that he is talking 100% drivel, and has merely become a
trifle more lazy in his lies.
He *used* to tread more carefully, but having been slapped down
repeatedly, probably does not consider it worth the effort to
camoflage his infantile frauds.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
28 Dec 2007 01:04:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:13:02 -0700, Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing. But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
28 Dec 2007 07:19:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:13:02 -0700, Michael wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none of us
know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your childish
response will be. It's going to take some pretty fantastic mental
gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas.
Oh my, need any K-Y for that ego?
However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people: "Objective, verifiable
and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that it is a logical
fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing. But this fallacy is
perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
In what dementia does the above make sense?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble.
But how much nobler it would be if men died for
ideas that were true!”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
27 Dec 2007 10:25:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:13:02 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
<pan.2007.12.28.03.12.58.602464@orneveien.org>:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:26:28 -0800, David V. wrote:
Then, please, inform all of us Atheists of this "dogma" that none
of us know about. It will be fascinating to see how inane your
childish response will be. It's going to take some pretty
fantastic mental gymnastics to find some dogma in a lack of
belief in gods.
It is not my purpose to reveal to you your own dogmas. However, for
reader's sake, I will illuminate a couple of them.
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing. But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Why is it a 'fraud' to ask for evidence that any gods exist?
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and cquoted by many atheists, maybe most.
History bears out the claim. What else don't you know?
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Facts are not dogmas. You don't get to make facts go away just because
they don't fit your religious doctrines.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till
I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so
many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
28 Dec 2007 05:09:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:25:12 -0600, Free Lunch wrote:
Yup, here we go...
A MANTRA often repeated by many different people:
"Objective, verifiable and testable evidence for God" -- never mind that
it is a logical fallacy, a fraud to even ask for such a thing. But this
fallacy is perhaps the most oft cited remark by atheists.
Why is it a 'fraud' to ask for evidence that any gods exist?
It is a logical fallacy to prepare a question in such a way that it cannot
be answered at all; it presumes factors not in evidence, and if you engage
in trying to answer, you implicitly accept your opponents presumptions.
Since "god" is not universally defined, there can be no implicit
presumptions. They must be explicit. It is proper (but conspicuously
foolish) to ask: "Prove to me by presenting objective, verifiable and
testable evidence that an untestable, unverifiable, transcendent God
exists." Perhaps your definition of "god" is something that CAN be
proven, in which case, it might not be what *I* believe exists.
In simpler terms, you ask "Prove to me something that cannot be proven."
Bonus dogma: Religion starts war. This is simply not true, but is a dogma
believed and quoted by many atheists, maybe most.
History bears out the claim. What else don't you know?
Thank you for this bit of brilliant questioning. I have absolutely NO IDEA
what I do not know.
Stalin's 12 million dead have nothing to do with religion.
Asia's millions of dead have nothing to do with religion.
Central Asian wars have usually nothing to do with religion.
Most war is "Malthusian" in nature, battle for resources.
You might start disputing these, but they ARE dogmas.
Facts are not dogmas. You don't get to make facts go away just because
they don't fit your religious doctrines.
As I expected, let the disputes begin :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
28 Dec 2007 05:26:08 PM |
|
|
Michael wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Why is it a 'fraud' to ask for evidence that any gods exist?
It is a logical fallacy to prepare a question in such a way that it cannot
be answered at all; it presumes factors not in evidence, ...
Yes, and the factors not in evidence include gods. The rest of your
"reasoning" boils down to, "I don't have any evidence my god exists, so
you're a meanie for asking for it."
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
28 Dec 2007 05:33:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:26:08 -0600, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@....com>
wrote:
Michael wrote:
Free Lunch wrote:
Why is it a 'fraud' to ask for evidence that any gods exist?
It is a logical fallacy to prepare a question in such a way that it cannot
be answered at all; it presumes factors not in evidence, ...
Yes, and the factors not in evidence include gods. The rest of your
"reasoning" boils down to, "I don't have any evidence my god exists, so
you're a meanie for asking for it."
These loonies don't seem to understand the concept of "put up or shut
up".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 05:47:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:26:08 -0600, L. Raymond wrote:
Why is it a 'fraud' to ask for evidence that any gods exist?
It is a logical fallacy to prepare a question in such a way that it cannot
be answered at all; it presumes factors not in evidence, ...
Yes, and the factors not in evidence include gods. The rest of your
"reasoning" boils down to, "I don't have any evidence my god exists, so
you're a meanie for asking for it."
You know, for a time I had subscribed to the idea that atheists, despite
being wrong about god (any god; not just the gods that I also believe do
not exist), had that "extra room" in your brain to fill with intelligence
and knowledge.
Not a one of you making response has even come close to grasping the
simple logic of it. But that's okay, I am not here to try to make you
understand something that you cannot. Someone asked for examples, I gave
examples, end of story.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: [alt.atheism,talk.atheism] Re: Is atheism becoming a religion? |
31 Dec 2007 07:27:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:47:54 -0700, in alt.atheism
Michael <newsuser2@orneveien.org> wrote in
<pan.2007.12.31.23.47.54.643361@orneveien.org>:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:26:08 -0600, L. Raymond wrote:
Why is it a 'fraud' to ask for evidence that any gods exist?
It is a logical fallacy to prepare a question in such a way that it cannot
be answered at all; it presumes factors not in evidence, ...
Yes, and the factors not in evidence include gods. The rest of your
"reasoning" boils down to, "I don't have any evidence my god exists, so
you're a meanie for asking for it."
You know, for a time I had subscribed to the idea that atheists, despite
being wrong about god (any god; not just the gods that I also believe do
not exist), had that "extra room" in your brain to fill with intelligence
and knowledge.
Not a one of you making response has even come close to grasping the
simple logic of it. But that's okay, I am not here to try to make you
understand something that you cannot. Someone asked for examples, I gave
examples, end of story.
Please remember that just because you are arrogant, that does not make
you informed or correct.
I shall not read your comments for a while, they are ignorant and silly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
