| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Gray" |
| Date: |
12 Sep 2004 07:00:26 AM |
| Object: |
Another definition... |
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
.
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
12 Sep 2004 08:23:49 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3be8k01udjsirle1eh0vi0irp6l5fehac8@4ax.com...
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
Um no not assuming there is no god, gods etc is more agnostic.
You'll tend to find that people who class themselves as atheists define
themeselves as not believing in the existance of god, gods, higher powers
etc. I don't see why you would have a problem with this accepted
definition.
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
12 Sep 2004 09:53:01 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:23:49 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3be8k01udjsirle1eh0vi0irp6l5fehac8@4ax.com...
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
Um no not assuming there is no god, gods etc is more agnostic.
You'll tend to find that people who class themselves as atheists define
themeselves as not believing in the existance of god, gods, higher powers
etc. I don't see why you would have a problem with this accepted
definition.
Kathryn
Because "not believing" is an active state.
By that definition, atheists in comas are not atheists.
That's just a miniscule part of the problem that I, and many others
have with that "active" definition.
Thus a "passive" definition.
And agnostics most definitely do not assume that there is/are no gods.
They claim that they do not have the knowledge to assume any stance on
the matter, thus a-gnostic.
Huxley invented the word to mean "No god given special knowledge", or
something along those lines.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
12 Sep 2004 11:31:54 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:cco8k0tvq6io6uvhn1e0mog5o0rumvf9p9@4ax.com...
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:23:49 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3be8k01udjsirle1eh0vi0irp6l5fehac8@4ax.com...
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
Um no not assuming there is no god, gods etc is more agnostic.
You'll tend to find that people who class themselves as atheists define
themeselves as not believing in the existance of god, gods, higher powers
etc. I don't see why you would have a problem with this accepted
definition.
Kathryn
Because "not believing" is an active state.
By that definition, atheists in comas are not atheists.
That's just a miniscule part of the problem that I, and many others
have with that "active" definition.
Thus a "passive" definition.
And agnostics most definitely do not assume that there is/are no gods.
They claim that they do not have the knowledge to assume any stance on
the matter, thus a-gnostic.
Huxley invented the word to mean "No god given special knowledge", or
something along those lines.
What did they believe they were in the coma?
What did the dead person believe before they were dead?
and you can't say a baby is anything but a baby because they have no belief
system yet. They don't lie there thinking that there either is, isn't or
might be a god.
You're over complicating a matter that doesnt need complicating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
13 Sep 2004 04:55:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 16:31:54 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com>
wrote:
:
You're over complicating a matter that doesnt need complicating.
Yeah, I'm beginning to regret it now. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
12 Sep 2004 11:26:23 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
Because "not believing" is an active state.
By that definition, atheists in comas are not atheists.
If not, neither are theists in comas theists.. Or communists in comas
communists. If someone/something isn't capable of holding an
intellectual position, he isn't holding it, period. It doesn't make
sense to talk of rocks or dead tissue as being theist, atheist,
nudist.... etc. The argument, say, that claims that nudism is the
default state of everything in the universe is as strong (as weak) as
the argument that atheism is the default state of everything in the
universe and that anything else requires an active stance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
18 Sep 2004 10:46:59 PM |
|
|
"nobody" <nobody@here.com> wrote in message
news:f3u8k0le8i19nk0loqerfjjptjdae2l19d@4ax.com...
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
Because "not believing" is an active state.
By that definition, atheists in comas are not atheists.
If not, neither are theists in comas theists.. Or communists in comas
communists. If someone/something isn't capable of holding an
intellectual position, he isn't holding it, period. It doesn't make
sense to talk of rocks or dead tissue as being theist, atheist,
nudist.... etc. The argument, say, that claims that nudism is the
default state of everything in the universe is as strong (as weak) as
the argument that atheism is the default state of everything in the
universe and that anything else requires an active stance.
And a nudist in a coma with clothes on is neither nude nor a nudist?
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
12 Sep 2004 11:05:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:23:01 +0930, Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:23:49 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn" <bob@bob.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:3be8k01udjsirle1eh0vi0irp6l5fehac8@4ax.com...
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
Um no not assuming there is no god, gods etc is more agnostic.
You'll tend to find that people who class themselves as atheists define
themeselves as not believing in the existance of god, gods, higher powers
etc. I don't see why you would have a problem with this accepted
definition.
Kathryn
Because "not believing" is an active state.
Actually, no; that's one way of evaluating the term "not believing" (so that it's
more nearly the same thing as "believing that not".) Another is "not doing that (active)
thing that is done by those who believe." That's the fundamental "not believing", and
comes as close as makes little practical difference to your "not assuming". The latter,
however, starts to confuse the issue delimiting agnosticism from atheism. We can have
fun playing with more or less wordy, more or less crystal-clear, more or less obscure ways
to define atheism. The thing is, which of the above do we want to go for? "I don't have
that belief" is all I mean by it.
By that definition, atheists in comas are not atheists.
That's just a miniscule part of the problem that I, and many others
have with that "active" definition.
Thus a "passive" definition.
<snip somewhat beside-the-point commentary re: agnostics>
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
12 Sep 2004 08:00:39 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
If it covers babies, you might get some flack from some of the
people around here. It doesn't bother me personally, but for
some reason, quite a few people don't think babies should be
considered atheists for some strange reason.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
12 Sep 2004 08:40:16 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1sh8k0t2a5h5i0hpo6hljmf8o6dhcdn0kc@4ax.com...
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
If it covers babies, you might get some flack from some of the
people around here. It doesn't bother me personally, but for
some reason, quite a few people don't think babies should be
considered atheists for some strange reason.
I happen to know that babies are not atheists, since when I was a baby I
believed in everything. To be an atheist you have to experience the opposite
of atheism and then reject it.
--
Hillybilly dingdong choochoo
Hillybilly dingdong choochoo
Hillybilly dingdong choochoo
Choochoo eisenbahn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
13 Sep 2004 08:08:51 AM |
|
|
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
If it covers babies, you might get some flack from some of the
people around here. It doesn't bother me personally, but for
some reason, quite a few people don't think babies should be
considered atheists for some strange reason.
I happen to know that babies are not atheists, since when I was a
baby I believed in everything.
How could you believe in things that you'd never heard of?
To be an atheist you have to experience the opposite
of atheism and then reject it.
I disagree. I consider theists as people who actively believe
in some god, go to church, pray, etc. Babies don't do any of those
things. Anyone who doesn't do those things is without theism
or not a theist, which makes them an atheist, since atheists are
people without theism.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
13 Sep 2004 12:13:19 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:ca6bk0dcprb88enbfs877a3q1qb6q9foqj@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
If it covers babies, you might get some flack from some of the
people around here. It doesn't bother me personally, but for
some reason, quite a few people don't think babies should be
considered atheists for some strange reason.
I happen to know that babies are not atheists, since when I was a
baby I believed in everything.
How could you believe in things that you'd never heard of?
You underestimate the Human brain.
To be an atheist you have to experience the opposite
of atheism and then reject it.
I disagree. I consider theists as people who actively believe
in some god, go to church, pray, etc. Babies don't do any of those
things. Anyone who doesn't do those things is without theism
or not a theist, which makes them an atheist, since atheists are
people without theism.
I disagree. Babies often go to church to be baptized or Christened. Jewish
baby boys are curcumcised in a religious rite. However they don't reject the
religion until they are old enough to articulate language concepts. Atheism
is a linguistic phenomenon.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
14 Sep 2004 10:16:03 AM |
|
|
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
I happen to know that babies are not atheists, since when I was a
baby I believed in everything.
How could you believe in things that you'd never heard of?
You underestimate the Human brain.
No I don't. You don't seem to like the idea that babies or young
children wouldn't naturally start worshipping some god without
having to be taught to worship it.
To be an atheist you have to experience the opposite
of atheism and then reject it.
I disagree. I consider theists as people who actively believe
in some god, go to church, pray, etc. Babies don't do any of those
things. Anyone who doesn't do those things is without theism
or not a theist, which makes them an atheist, since atheists are
people without theism.
I disagree. Babies often go to church to be baptized or Christened.
Not of their own free will. Would you like to argue that point?
For the sake of clarification, how old can a child be before it's no
longer considered a baby, in your opinion?
Jewish baby boys are curcumcised in a religious rite.
Yes, it's sad, don't you think? The poor baby boy doesn't even have
a say so in the matter, and can never get his foreskin back. Oh well,
c'est la vie!
However they don't reject the religion until they are old enough to
articulate language concepts.
Even if they decide to reject it, someone could ask them to pull
down their pants, and if they're circumcised, then they would be
branded as a Jew or some tribe of Abraham in which the people
believe that all boys should have their foreskin chopped off at
some point in their lives in order to properly follow or worship some
ancient god of Abraham, who told people to chip off the foreskin
of their male tribe members in some make-believe covenant.
The baby boys have no say so when it's done at 8-days-old, so
they are branded for life in a way, without ever willingly consenting
to being branded or mutilated in order to supposedly become a member
of the tribe...
Perhaps you consider a baby boy who was circumcised at 8-days-old as
an actual theist? Do you?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
13 Sep 2004 12:48:16 PM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:ca6bk0dcprb88enbfs877a3q1qb6q9foqj@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
If it covers babies, you might get some flack from some of the
people around here. It doesn't bother me personally, but for
some reason, quite a few people don't think babies should be
considered atheists for some strange reason.
I happen to know that babies are not atheists, since when I was a
baby I believed in everything.
How could you believe in things that you'd never heard of?
You underestimate the Human brain.
To be an atheist you have to experience the opposite
of atheism and then reject it.
I disagree. I consider theists as people who actively believe
in some god, go to church, pray, etc. Babies don't do any of those
things. Anyone who doesn't do those things is without theism
or not a theist, which makes them an atheist, since atheists are
people without theism.
I disagree. Babies often go to church to be baptized or Christened. Jewish
baby boys are curcumcised in a religious rite. However they don't reject the
religion until they are old enough to articulate language concepts. Atheism
is a linguistic phenomenon.
Babies get taken, they don't go. And atheism is not strictly
rejection of religion. It's simply lack of belief in deities.
--
EAC Liar, Damned Liar, and Statistician
alt.atheist #1966
"Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient
citizenship as the ability to read and write." - H.G. Wells
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
13 Sep 2004 07:00:43 PM |
|
|
"Carl Kaufmann" <cwkaufmann@cox.net> wrote in message
news:H3l1d.296358$Oi.13169@fed1read04...
Ike wrote:
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:ca6bk0dcprb88enbfs877a3q1qb6q9foqj@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
OK.
My proposition for a definiton of "atheist":
"One who does not assume that there is a God or Gods."
It's based not on apositive assertion, but a negative.
Covers everything, from babies to dead folks.
Whaddya think?
(Be Gentile, it's my first time...)
If it covers babies, you might get some flack from some of the
people around here. It doesn't bother me personally, but for
some reason, quite a few people don't think babies should be
considered atheists for some strange reason.
I happen to know that babies are not atheists, since when I was a
baby I believed in everything.
How could you believe in things that you'd never heard of?
You underestimate the Human brain.
To be an atheist you have to experience the opposite
of atheism and then reject it.
I disagree. I consider theists as people who actively believe
in some god, go to church, pray, etc. Babies don't do any of those
things. Anyone who doesn't do those things is without theism
or not a theist, which makes them an atheist, since atheists are
people without theism.
I disagree. Babies often go to church to be baptized or Christened.
Jewish
baby boys are curcumcised in a religious rite. However they don't reject
the
religion until they are old enough to articulate language concepts.
Atheism
is a linguistic phenomenon.
Babies get taken, they don't go. And atheism is not strictly
rejection of religion. It's simply lack of belief in deities.
Well, you know, why I don't like calling babies atheists is a couple of
reasons.
a) No one is an atheist or any kind of -ist until they make up their
so-called mind to fit into that -ism.
b) The assertion is probably based on the idea that atheism is some kind of
natural state, and babies since they are born naked are in a natural state,
ergo... The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations and is
a waste af philosophical energy.
c) If you were to take time as a continuum then the religious belief or lack
thereof would be subject to the deterministic process. It is therefore not a
choice, because choices don't exist.
d) If you truly subscribe to the no-God theory, then the thesis of religion
is a delusion, and the denial of the religion is a linguistic exercise.
Babies are not yet capable of linguistic endeavors, especially of such a
complex nature.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
14 Sep 2004 10:20:09 AM |
|
|
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
b) The assertion is probably based on the idea that atheism is some kind of
natural state, and babies since they are born naked are in a natural state,
ergo... The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations and is
a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
15 Sep 2004 09:01:15 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:gq2ek0l9ptmuh072l2rqcsmcv4b48fb98d@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
b) The assertion is probably based on the idea that atheism is some kind
of
natural state, and babies since they are born naked are in a natural
state,
ergo... The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations
and is
a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
What last god idea? Anyhow the origin of the Calvinist doctrine of original
sin in infants is based on the fact that if they don't have linguistic
knowledge of faith, they are unbelievers, and therfore damned.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
16 Sep 2004 06:40:59 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Lt62d.1486$gG4.325@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:gq2ek0l9ptmuh072l2rqcsmcv4b48fb98d@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
b) The assertion is probably based on the idea that atheism is some
kind
of
natural state, and babies since they are born naked are in a natural
state,
ergo... The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations
and is
a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
What last god idea? Anyhow the origin of the Calvinist doctrine of
original
sin in infants is based on the fact that if they don't have linguistic
knowledge of faith, they are unbelievers, and therfore damned.
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
22 Sep 2004 09:30:38 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:2qtce9F13tlajU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Lt62d.1486$gG4.325@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:gq2ek0l9ptmuh072l2rqcsmcv4b48fb98d@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
b) The assertion is probably based on the idea that atheism is some
kind
of
natural state, and babies since they are born naked are in a natural
state,
ergo... The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations
and is
a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
What last god idea? Anyhow the origin of the Calvinist doctrine of
original
sin in infants is based on the fact that if they don't have linguistic
knowledge of faith, they are unbelievers, and therfore damned.
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where? Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since
Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden. But that's just the official story. The
psychological mechanism is what I'm trying to get at, in case anyone would
like to further elucidate it. my idea is just the tip of a very complicated
iceberg. (Please, someone critique my metaphors, if not my ideas!)
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
22 Sep 2004 12:34:30 PM |
|
|
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations
and is a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
What last god idea? Anyhow the origin of the Calvinist doctrine of
original sin in infants is based on the fact that if they don't have linguistic
knowledge of faith, they are unbelievers, and therfore damned.
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
But that's just the official story. The psychological mechanism is what I'm
trying to get at, in case anyone would like to further elucidate it.
Which psychological mechanism?
my idea is just the tip of a very complicated iceberg. (Please, someone
critique my metaphors, if not my ideas!)
You need to provide some more info before your ideas or metaphors
can be properly critiqued. What do you have in mind above?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
24 Sep 2004 08:54:21 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:7nrll05ongivnfarvkiuqpoaltis71u8hi@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations
and is a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
What last god idea? Anyhow the origin of the Calvinist doctrine of
original sin in infants is based on the fact that if they don't have
linguistic
knowledge of faith, they are unbelievers, and therfore damned.
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
I don't think anyone sinned.
But that's just the official story. The psychological mechanism is what
I'm
trying to get at, in case anyone would like to further elucidate it.
Which psychological mechanism?
The psychological mechanism of religious control.
my idea is just the tip of a very complicated iceberg. (Please, someone
critique my metaphors, if not my ideas!)
You need to provide some more info before your ideas or metaphors
can be properly critiqued. What do you have in mind above?
Complicated Icebergs are a mixed metaphor like Clockwork Oranges.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
24 Sep 2004 10:06:25 AM |
|
|
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
I don't think anyone sinned.
So you don't believe in the whole "sin" idea? Good for you!
But that's just the official story. The psychological mechanism is what
I'm trying to get at, in case anyone would like to further elucidate it.
Which psychological mechanism?
The psychological mechanism of religious control.
And the "sin" idea? Yes?
my idea is just the tip of a very complicated iceberg. (Please, someone
critique my metaphors, if not my ideas!)
You need to provide some more info before your ideas or metaphors
can be properly critiqued. What do you have in mind above?
Complicated Icebergs are a mixed metaphor like Clockwork Oranges.
Please don't try to muddy the waters, if you can help it...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
24 Sep 2004 12:25:03 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:jcsql0turq5j62b63p62ub33ca6gucbj9n@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
I don't think anyone sinned.
So you don't believe in the whole "sin" idea? Good for you!
But that's just the official story. The psychological mechanism is
what
I'm trying to get at, in case anyone would like to further elucidate
it.
Which psychological mechanism?
The psychological mechanism of religious control.
And the "sin" idea? Yes?
Sin is an idea. What's the question mean?
my idea is just the tip of a very complicated iceberg. (Please,
someone
critique my metaphors, if not my ideas!)
You need to provide some more info before your ideas or metaphors
can be properly critiqued. What do you have in mind above?
Complicated Icebergs are a mixed metaphor like Clockwork Oranges.
Please don't try to muddy the waters, if you can help it...
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
22 Sep 2004 12:42:08 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:7nrll05ongivnfarvkiuqpoaltis71u8hi@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations
and is a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
What last god idea? Anyhow the origin of the Calvinist doctrine of
original sin in infants is based on the fact that if they don't have
linguistic
knowledge of faith, they are unbelievers, and therfore damned.
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Exactly.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
23 Sep 2004 04:32:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 13:42:08 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:7nrll05ongivnfarvkiuqpoaltis71u8hi@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
The "natural state" of man is subject to many interpretations
and is a waste af philosophical energy.
The Bible itself claims that the natural state of man is one without
the belief in some god, does it not? It warns people not to worship
false gods and prophets and idols, which believe it or not, is a good
idea, if you take it to the conclusion, and get rid of that one last
pesky god idea.
What last god idea? Anyhow the origin of the Calvinist doctrine of
original sin in infants is based on the fact that if they don't have
linguistic
knowledge of faith, they are unbelievers, and therfore damned.
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Exactly.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
'God' and 'Jesus.'
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
22 Sep 2004 01:33:29 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Exactly.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
I wonder if Ike considers one of the stories true, and the other one
false. Hmm...
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
24 Sep 2004 08:54:25 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:cqvll01b4eski6vlmn33kvs4uucqsdodjc@4ax.com...
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Exactly.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
I wonder if Ike considers one of the stories true, and the other one
false. Hmm...
Nope, but I don't fell much need to wear my beliefs or non-beliefs on my
sleeve as a personal credetial. Only trying to elucidate thinking to
stimulate my own imagination.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
24 Sep 2004 10:02:49 AM |
|
|
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Exactly.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
I wonder if Ike considers one of the stories true, and the other one
false. Hmm...
Nope, but I don't fell much need to wear my beliefs or non-beliefs on my
sleeve as a personal credetial. Only trying to elucidate thinking to
stimulate my own imagination.
Do you actually take one of the stories more seriously than the other?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
24 Sep 2004 12:25:02 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:0asql0ptas3pr0611fhu1bkknb9tm74rp7@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Exactly.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and Eve
sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
I wonder if Ike considers one of the stories true, and the other one
false. Hmm...
Nope, but I don't fell much need to wear my beliefs or non-beliefs on my
sleeve as a personal credetial. Only trying to elucidate thinking to
stimulate my own imagination.
Do you actually take one of the stories more seriously than the other?
The stories themselves are not so interesting as why they exist as stories
and the relation of the stories to potential actions.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
24 Sep 2004 05:54:08 PM |
|
|
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
I wonder if Ike considers one of the stories true, and the other one
false. Hmm...
Nope, but I don't fell much need to wear my beliefs or non-beliefs on my
sleeve as a personal credetial. Only trying to elucidate thinking to
stimulate my own imagination.
Do you actually take one of the stories more seriously than the other?
The stories themselves are not so interesting as why they exist as stories
and the relation of the stories to potential actions.
At least you agree that they're both just fictional stories.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://www.eapnews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Another definition... |
25 Sep 2004 01:57:05 AM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:0asql0ptas3pr0611fhu1bkknb9tm74rp7@4ax.com...
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Ike <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Robibnikoff <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
I always heard that original sin was from Eve eating the apple.
Heard from where?
From all kinds of different Christian sects and denominations and
cults.
Exactly.
Not from me. The original sin attaches to infants since Adam and
Eve sinned in the Garden.
Who do you think sinned more? Eve, or Pandora?
Oh brother ;)
I wonder if Ike considers one of the stories true, and the other one
false. Hmm...
Nope, but I don't fell much need to wear my beliefs or non-beliefs on
my sleeve as a personal credetial. Only trying to elucidate thinking to
stimulate my own imagination.
Do you actually take one of the stories more seriously than the other?
The stories themselves are not so interesting as why they exist as stories
and the relation of the stories to potential actions.
All cultures creat their myths, including creation myths.
Adam and Eve were the myths of ancient Israel, influenced
by their neighbors.
The idea trouble came into the world is expressed by
this myth and Pandora and Gilgamesh and other tales.
Snakes are always popular, in many African myth cycles,
the snake tricked man out of immortality.
The tale of the garden's serpent and god thrwowing man
out to keep him from becoming immortal, and a god
shows other ideas percolating under these myths.
One wonders whatthe original myth cycles were
before this editing of several versions together.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
