| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sphere" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2006 10:59:50 PM |
| Object: |
Antitheism |
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Antitheists may also accept the label Atheist,
or might not. The primary distinction between
atheism and antitheism is that the atheist may
think the question of the existence or non-existence
of God worthy of consideration, while the antitheist
does not. The primary interest of the antitheist
with respect to God is to make the idea go away,
and it is even possible for an antitheist to believe
that God exists -- but is irrelevant.
Antitheists are generally not well received by
monotheists, and for good reason. The antitheist
probably finds the behavor of monotheists
particularly unpleasant in their pushing of the
God idea as some sort of absolute truth.
As an antitheist, my brief against monotheism
is this: The idea of One God is a schoolyard bully
who cannot play well with others. It is basic to
the idea of One God that all other notions of divinity
must be destroyed -- frequently by killing the people
who hold those other notions of divinity. People
infected with the One God idea have to be viewed with
suspicion, as in the past -- and even the present --
they have been known to engage in violence based
upon this evil idea, sometimes collectively.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:07:30 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It certainly isn't enviable - minority survival never is,
and we are indeed the minority.
I'm surprised at how her post was taken by people who
can read English (but apparently not understand it).
Hya Jenski!
Hope you didn't get iced this week!
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:27:35 PM |
|
|
"Déjà Fu" <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ip-dnXLYc60mpD3YnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It certainly isn't enviable - minority survival never is,
and we are indeed the minority.
I'm surprised at how her post was taken by people who
can read English (but apparently not understand it).
Hya Jenski!
Hope you didn't get iced this week!
mildest winter here i've ever seen,
so far. don't know how much longer
i can hold my breath...
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:35:53 PM |
|
|
buddhapest wrote:
"Déjà Fu" <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ip-dnXLYc60mpD3YnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It certainly isn't enviable - minority survival never is,
and we are indeed the minority.
I'm surprised at how her post was taken by people who
can read English (but apparently not understand it).
Hya Jenski!
Hope you didn't get iced this week!
mildest winter here i've ever seen,
so far. don't know how much longer
i can hold my breath...
I was out in a Tshirt and shorts today.
if Kansas and Oklahoma got any darker,
they'd be in North Dakota.
btw - if i misconscrewed u'r bit of
antitheisticism aknalysis, please correct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:46:17 PM |
|
|
"Déjà Fu" <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r72dndqRw_D_3T3YnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@comcast.com...
buddhapest wrote:
"Déjà Fu" <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ip-dnXLYc60mpD3YnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It certainly isn't enviable - minority survival never is,
and we are indeed the minority.
I'm surprised at how her post was taken by people who
can read English (but apparently not understand it).
Hya Jenski!
Hope you didn't get iced this week!
mildest winter here i've ever seen,
so far. don't know how much longer
i can hold my breath...
I was out in a Tshirt and shorts today.
if Kansas and Oklahoma got any darker,
they'd be in North Dakota.
btw - if i misconscrewed u'r bit of
antitheisticism aknalysis, please correct.
i loved the part where they took up
a position to deny positionality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:49:08 PM |
|
|
buddhapest wrote:
"Déjà Fu" <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:r72dndqRw_D_3T3YnZ2dnUVZ_vqpnZ2d@comcast.com...
buddhapest wrote:
"Déjà Fu" <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ip-dnXLYc60mpD3YnZ2dnUVZ_qOpnZ2d@comcast.com...
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It certainly isn't enviable - minority survival never is,
and we are indeed the minority.
I'm surprised at how her post was taken by people who
can read English (but apparently not understand it).
Hya Jenski!
Hope you didn't get iced this week!
mildest winter here i've ever seen,
so far. don't know how much longer
i can hold my breath...
I was out in a Tshirt and shorts today.
if Kansas and Oklahoma got any darker,
they'd be in North Dakota.
btw - if i misconscrewed u'r bit of
antitheisticism aknalysis, please correct.
i loved the part where they took up
a position to deny positionality.
o - i thought they learned that from Tang
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:19:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:07:30 -0500, Déjà Fu <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It's not even a position per se, moron, just the demographic absence
of the theist's.
So stop being so deliberately, nastily stupid.
It certainly isn't enviable - minority survival never is,
and we are indeed the minority.
I'm surprised at how her post was taken by people who
can read English (but apparently not understand it).
Hya Jenski!
Hope you didn't get iced this week!
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:36:25 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:41f0q2ddicbongj9aob5buodfocrfhfp5e@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:07:30 -0500, Déjà Fu <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It's not even a position per se, moron, just the demographic absence
of the theist's.
So stop being so deliberately, nastily stupid.
reptilian defensive positioning, whilst denying
positionality, duly noted and terminally recycled
out of pure compassion.
care to reload?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 06:31:19 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 19:07:30 -0500, Déjà Fu <chanfu@gmail.com> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Yet another stupid, deliberately nasty, lying theist.
ah ah... See my reply to DT about how Jen's observation
is quite accurate and you might see for yourself how our
"position is completely necessitated by the existence of
god believers. not quite an enviable position."
It's not even a position per se, moron, just the demographic absence
of the theist's.
So stop being so deliberately, nastily stupid.
hahahaha! no wonder we're losing the war!
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 10:25:51 PM |
|
|
Déjà_Fu wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
It's not even a position per se, moron, just the demographic absence
of the theist's.
So stop being so deliberately, nastily stupid.
hahahaha! no wonder we're losing the war!
I suggest you circle the wagons, as the denizens of alt.atheism have
done, only try not to lose your temper in the process.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 08:26:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
There is no "need" for atheists and never has been. If no one
believes in any god, everyone will be an atheist, by definition - they
won't believe in any god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?=" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 08:31:26 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
There is no "need" for atheists and never has been. If no one
believes in any god, everyone will be an atheist, by definition - they
won't believe in any god.
Holy Jesus Christ, if this is the best you people can do
you shouldn't be surprised that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
are the rulers of the free world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 01:32:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, in alt.atheism
"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote in
<GmQnh.8118$w91.6816@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168101403.722604.30480@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:33:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168054394.208858.121630@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:05:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168052717.524552.200380@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:29:15 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:t4ktp2t0b2m94udg5l2s2e70mnq54vriqc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:38:40 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1167780670.068511.128970@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167541190.513790.96600@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Since god is knowledge
False premise
Can you prove it is false?
Sure - atheism isn't a belief, it's lack of a particular
belief.
This statement allows room for atheists to have beliefs. Was that
your
intention?
No, my intention was to show that your assertion that an atheist
(which is what most people mean when they say antitheist) is
"Somone
[sic] who believes God is a bad idea" is nonsense. (As is the
idea
that atheism is antitheism.)
Atheism and antitheism are notions with little
relationship to each other. I am theologically
non-theistic and socially antitheistic. I also
consider Atheism a system of belief.
What kind of a system of beliefs contains no beliefs?
I wouldn't know. Death perhaps.
In particular, Athieists believe the notion of
existence is well defined and has a truth
value. One of the most notable behavors
of Atheists is their assertion that it is valid
to partition humanity based upon some
particular narrow notion of divinity.
You make amazingly sweeping claims for atheists that I will
cheerfully
disagree with. I would like you to particularly address the fact that
Buddhism has both theistic and atheistic traditions in it.
Buddhism has both polytheistic and
atheistic traditions. Theism, however,
is very diffiuclt to uphold within Buddhism --
though many try to do it anyway. Buddha
rejected all notions of Self, and told his
followers not to chase after "I was," or
"I will be." There is a decided dissonance
between Buddha's teachings and the notion
of a creator. Other than that, Buddhism
is basically disinterested in the question.
Only Theists and Atheists would bother
trying to classify Buddhism within this
stupid framework.
As for my claims about Atheists, I make
these claims only for people who define
themselves as Atheist. Other people who
these Atheists would call atheist are not
covered by my observations.
That is just gibberish.
I know a little bit more about where Sphere is coming from so I'll give
a shot at a translation.
People who "define themselves as athiest" hold the *view* "God does not
exist." Inherent in that view is that God is defined, and that
existence is defined. They define themselves, "I am an athiest" by
the idea of negation (non-existence.)
I do not hold the view "God exists." So an athiest (or even a theist
for that matter) might define me as an athiest. But I do not identify
myself as an athiest, becuase I do not hold the view "God does not
exist." I am not confident enough with any definition of God or
"existence" to hold that view, nor do I consider the debate to be
relevant or worth my time.
In all my years on usenet and forums, (before usenet was even popular
and I dialed up to local bulletin boards) I have never seen an athiest
or theist win an argument or concede that the other was correct. It's
never happened and it will never happen. People will hold whatever
belief they have as long as it suits them, based on whatever comforts
and fears give rise to them. Those who "define themselves as athiest"
often hold that belief becuase it provides psychological comfort. To
be fair, theists do the same thing.
Self-declared athiests typically think that their athiesm matters,
otherwise there would be no need of such a label.
By the way, I am atheist, but I have no idea what an Atheist is.
Probably the same as atheism but requiring a nominal fee. :-)
-DaveK
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
That makes absolutely no sense. You seem to have a hard time grasping
what words mean. If there are no people who believe in gods, it would
not be necessary to describe the concept of atheism because it would not
be in contrast to theism. If there had never been theists, the word
would not have been invented, but the lack of belief in gods would
remain.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Who has the unenviable position those who believe in gods even though
they have no evidence to support their beliefs or those who don't bother
to believe in things that do not have evidence for them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "buddhapest" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism with full moon |
06 Jan 2007 02:28:54 PM |
|
|
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ffmvp2dtc3l0tfo9aoq257v0b4q127n339@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, in alt.atheism
"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote in
<GmQnh.8118$w91.6816@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168101403.722604.30480@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:33:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168054394.208858.121630@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:05:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168052717.524552.200380@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:29:15 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:t4ktp2t0b2m94udg5l2s2e70mnq54vriqc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:38:40 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1167780670.068511.128970@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167541190.513790.96600@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Since god is knowledge
False premise
Can you prove it is false?
Sure - atheism isn't a belief, it's lack of a particular
belief.
This statement allows room for atheists to have beliefs. Was
that
your
intention?
No, my intention was to show that your assertion that an
atheist
(which is what most people mean when they say antitheist) is
"Somone
[sic] who believes God is a bad idea" is nonsense. (As is the
idea
that atheism is antitheism.)
Atheism and antitheism are notions with little
relationship to each other. I am theologically
non-theistic and socially antitheistic. I also
consider Atheism a system of belief.
What kind of a system of beliefs contains no beliefs?
I wouldn't know. Death perhaps.
In particular, Athieists believe the notion of
existence is well defined and has a truth
value. One of the most notable behavors
of Atheists is their assertion that it is valid
to partition humanity based upon some
particular narrow notion of divinity.
You make amazingly sweeping claims for atheists that I will
cheerfully
disagree with. I would like you to particularly address the fact
that
Buddhism has both theistic and atheistic traditions in it.
Buddhism has both polytheistic and
atheistic traditions. Theism, however,
is very diffiuclt to uphold within Buddhism --
though many try to do it anyway. Buddha
rejected all notions of Self, and told his
followers not to chase after "I was," or
"I will be." There is a decided dissonance
between Buddha's teachings and the notion
of a creator. Other than that, Buddhism
is basically disinterested in the question.
Only Theists and Atheists would bother
trying to classify Buddhism within this
stupid framework.
As for my claims about Atheists, I make
these claims only for people who define
themselves as Atheist. Other people who
these Atheists would call atheist are not
covered by my observations.
That is just gibberish.
I know a little bit more about where Sphere is coming from so I'll give
a shot at a translation.
People who "define themselves as athiest" hold the *view* "God does not
exist." Inherent in that view is that God is defined, and that
existence is defined. They define themselves, "I am an athiest" by
the idea of negation (non-existence.)
I do not hold the view "God exists." So an athiest (or even a theist
for that matter) might define me as an athiest. But I do not identify
myself as an athiest, becuase I do not hold the view "God does not
exist." I am not confident enough with any definition of God or
"existence" to hold that view, nor do I consider the debate to be
relevant or worth my time.
In all my years on usenet and forums, (before usenet was even popular
and I dialed up to local bulletin boards) I have never seen an athiest
or theist win an argument or concede that the other was correct. It's
never happened and it will never happen. People will hold whatever
belief they have as long as it suits them, based on whatever comforts
and fears give rise to them. Those who "define themselves as athiest"
often hold that belief becuase it provides psychological comfort. To
be fair, theists do the same thing.
Self-declared athiests typically think that their athiesm matters,
otherwise there would be no need of such a label.
By the way, I am atheist, but I have no idea what an Atheist is.
Probably the same as atheism but requiring a nominal fee. :-)
-DaveK
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
That makes absolutely no sense.
right. there's no sense in pushing the buttons
of the knee jerk atheists and then go make
popcorn.
You seem to have a hard time grasping
what words mean.
not really a bad thing since words are simply
a backwater cesspooling of their own insignificance
in that asked what one word means you only get
other words ad nauseum ad infinitum in an endless
sneeze of uselessness evermore building straw house
conceptual cage erecting agenda negotiation
manuverings and positionalities upon your own
head for your dining and dancing pleasures
until that raw dependency forces you to take
up that reptilian defensive posturing tickling
those rhinoencephaletic itchings to the tune
of fostering those animal nature safety addictions
and dreaded gut wrenching fears when all you
may really need to do is to go out and howl
at the moon once in a while.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism with full moon |
06 Jan 2007 08:34:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 20:28:54 GMT, "buddhapest"
<pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ffmvp2dtc3l0tfo9aoq257v0b4q127n339@4ax.com...
You seem to have a hard time grasping
what words mean.
not really a bad thing since words are simply
a backwater cesspooling of their own insignificance
in that asked what one word means you only get
other words ad nauseum ad infinitum
Unless you actually want to communicate with another sentient being -
which you wouldn't know anything about.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DharmaTroll" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism with full moon |
06 Jan 2007 02:54:06 PM |
|
|
buddhapest wrote:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ffmvp2dtc3l0tfo9aoq257v0b4q127n339@4ax.com...
You seem to have a hard time grasping
what words mean.
not really a bad thing since words are simply
a backwater cesspooling of their own insignificance
in that asked what one word means you only get
other words ad nauseum ad infinitum in an endless
sneeze of uselessness evermore building straw house
conceptual cage...
DT> Ah. A simple fallacy of an invalid kind of generalization here.
While it may be (and most likely is) true that your words, buddhapest,
only refer to other nonsense words, you have falsely generalized that
to the rest of us.
Indeed, for the superstitionist, words don't refer (e.g., 'God',
'ghost', 'soul', 'heaven'). Yet many or most of the words that sane,
rational people use do refer. For example, the words 'tree' and
'window' when I say that as I type this I can look up and see the tree
outside my window, refers to an actual tree in an actual place, namely,
the backyard of the house where I live. Now you can use words to refer
to my use of 'tree', and they have 'borrowed reference', but they are
ultimately grounded in my tangible experience of a tree. And while you
may further say, "but DharmaTroll, your brain created those
experiences", nonetheless, an extant tree reflecting actual physical
electromagnetic energy of the proper wavelengths, caused my retina to
send the signals to be interpreted. And so ultimately the words are
grounded in the existence of real trees, cats, stones, stars, and the
like.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
<< 'Boston is populous' is about Boston and contains 'Boston';
''Boston' is disyllabic' is about 'Boston' and contains ''Boston''.
''Boston'' designates 'Boston', which in turn designates Boston. To
mention Boston we use 'Boston' or a synonym, and to mention 'Boston' we
use ''Boston'' or a synonym. ''Boston'' contains six letters and just
one pair of quotations marks; 'Boston' contains six letters and no
quotation marks; and Boston contains some 800,000 people.>>
-W.V.O. Quine
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
07 Jan 2007 06:44:34 AM |
|
|
Actually atheism has a very odd history in the English language in that
it predates the useage of the word "theist" by about 50 years. Atheisme
was introduced from French before theiism was commonly used in the
English language. It was introduced by rampant believers in a
perjorative way to counter a growing skepticism current in the 16th
century. Though its "literal" meaning is simply indicates a passive
negation of the theory of god, it has been used by the dominant
ideology as a perjorative term to attack a unbeliever, "a heretical
infidel who actively rejects god and will burn in hell".
However, we are now in the 21st century and the theological dominant
ideology has been diminished. A more useful and user realted mode of
definition is clearly more appropriate and the literal definition, from
the ancient greek has been restored. This guarentees the right of
atheists to be know for what they are, in their own terms in exactly
the sae way that theists can define their own personal god and not have
someone else's definition foisted upon them -afterall ALL theists as
also atheistic! Christians deny the existence of many gods: Zeus,
Neptune, Wotan, Thor, Ganesh etc.But those that are honest to call
themselves atheist just go one god further.
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, in alt.atheism
"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote in
<GmQnh.8118$w91.6816@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168101403.722604.30480@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:33:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168054394.208858.121630@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:05:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168052717.524552.200380@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:29:15 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:t4ktp2t0b2m94udg5l2s2e70mnq54vriqc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:38:40 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1167780670.068511.128970@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167541190.513790.96600@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Since god is knowledge
False premise
Can you prove it is false?
Sure - atheism isn't a belief, it's lack of a particular
belief.
This statement allows room for atheists to have beliefs. Was that
your
intention?
No, my intention was to show that your assertion that an atheist
(which is what most people mean when they say antitheist) is
"Somone
[sic] who believes God is a bad idea" is nonsense. (As is the
idea
that atheism is antitheism.)
Atheism and antitheism are notions with little
relationship to each other. I am theologically
non-theistic and socially antitheistic. I also
consider Atheism a system of belief.
What kind of a system of beliefs contains no beliefs?
I wouldn't know. Death perhaps.
In particular, Athieists believe the notion of
existence is well defined and has a truth
value. One of the most notable behavors
of Atheists is their assertion that it is valid
to partition humanity based upon some
particular narrow notion of divinity.
You make amazingly sweeping claims for atheists that I will
cheerfully
disagree with. I would like you to particularly address the fact that
Buddhism has both theistic and atheistic traditions in it.
Buddhism has both polytheistic and
atheistic traditions. Theism, however,
is very diffiuclt to uphold within Buddhism --
though many try to do it anyway. Buddha
rejected all notions of Self, and told his
followers not to chase after "I was," or
"I will be." There is a decided dissonance
between Buddha's teachings and the notion
of a creator. Other than that, Buddhism
is basically disinterested in the question.
Only Theists and Atheists would bother
trying to classify Buddhism within this
stupid framework.
As for my claims about Atheists, I make
these claims only for people who define
themselves as Atheist. Other people who
these Atheists would call atheist are not
covered by my observations.
That is just gibberish.
I know a little bit more about where Sphere is coming from so I'll give
a shot at a translation.
People who "define themselves as athiest" hold the *view* "God does not
exist." Inherent in that view is that God is defined, and that
existence is defined. They define themselves, "I am an athiest" by
the idea of negation (non-existence.)
I do not hold the view "God exists." So an athiest (or even a theist
for that matter) might define me as an athiest. But I do not identify
myself as an athiest, becuase I do not hold the view "God does not
exist." I am not confident enough with any definition of God or
"existence" to hold that view, nor do I consider the debate to be
relevant or worth my time.
In all my years on usenet and forums, (before usenet was even popular
and I dialed up to local bulletin boards) I have never seen an athiest
or theist win an argument or concede that the other was correct. It's
never happened and it will never happen. People will hold whatever
belief they have as long as it suits them, based on whatever comforts
and fears give rise to them. Those who "define themselves as athiest"
often hold that belief becuase it provides psychological comfort. To
be fair, theists do the same thing.
Self-declared athiests typically think that their athiesm matters,
otherwise there would be no need of such a label.
By the way, I am atheist, but I have no idea what an Atheist is.
Probably the same as atheism but requiring a nominal fee. :-)
-DaveK
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
That makes absolutely no sense. You seem to have a hard time grasping
what words mean. If there are no people who believe in gods, it would
not be necessary to describe the concept of atheism because it would not
be in contrast to theism. If there had never been theists, the word
would not have been invented, but the lack of belief in gods would
remain.
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Who has the unenviable position those who believe in gods even though
they have no evidence to support their beliefs or those who don't bother
to believe in things that do not have evidence for them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave K" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 01:48:00 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 16:45:26 GMT, in alt.atheism
"buddhapest" <pestaroonie@netzero.com> wrote in
<GmQnh.8118$w91.6816@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168101403.722604.30480@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:33:14 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168054394.208858.121630@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>:
Free Lunch wrote:
On 5 Jan 2007 19:05:17 -0800, in alt.atheism
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in
<1168052717.524552.200380@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com>:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:29:15 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:t4ktp2t0b2m94udg5l2s2e70mnq54vriqc@4ax.com...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:38:40 -0600, "Russ Rose"
<russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1167780670.068511.128970@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167541190.513790.96600@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
I don't think I invented the term but I have been
seeing it bantied about for awhile, and I think
the first use of it I've ever seen was someone
describing my position. I think I'll have a go at
defining the term.
Antitheist: n. Somone who believes God is
a bad idea.
Since god is knowledge
False premise
Can you prove it is false?
Sure - atheism isn't a belief, it's lack of a particular
belief.
This statement allows room for atheists to have beliefs. Was that
your
intention?
No, my intention was to show that your assertion that an atheist
(which is what most people mean when they say antitheist) is
"Somone
[sic] who believes God is a bad idea" is nonsense. (As is the
idea
that atheism is antitheism.)
Atheism and antitheism are notions with little
relationship to each other. I am theologically
non-theistic and socially antitheistic. I also
consider Atheism a system of belief.
What kind of a system of beliefs contains no beliefs?
I wouldn't know. Death perhaps.
In particular, Athieists believe the notion of
existence is well defined and has a truth
value. One of the most notable behavors
of Atheists is their assertion that it is valid
to partition humanity based upon some
particular narrow notion of divinity.
You make amazingly sweeping claims for atheists that I will
cheerfully
disagree with. I would like you to particularly address the fact that
Buddhism has both theistic and atheistic traditions in it.
Buddhism has both polytheistic and
atheistic traditions. Theism, however,
is very diffiuclt to uphold within Buddhism --
though many try to do it anyway. Buddha
rejected all notions of Self, and told his
followers not to chase after "I was," or
"I will be." There is a decided dissonance
between Buddha's teachings and the notion
of a creator. Other than that, Buddhism
is basically disinterested in the question.
Only Theists and Atheists would bother
trying to classify Buddhism within this
stupid framework.
As for my claims about Atheists, I make
these claims only for people who define
themselves as Atheist. Other people who
these Atheists would call atheist are not
covered by my observations.
That is just gibberish.
I know a little bit more about where Sphere is coming from so I'll give
a shot at a translation.
People who "define themselves as athiest" hold the *view* "God does not
exist." Inherent in that view is that God is defined, and that
existence is defined. They define themselves, "I am an athiest" by
the idea of negation (non-existence.)
I do not hold the view "God exists." So an athiest (or even a theist
for that matter) might define me as an athiest. But I do not identify
myself as an athiest, becuase I do not hold the view "God does not
exist." I am not confident enough with any definition of God or
"existence" to hold that view, nor do I consider the debate to be
relevant or worth my time.
In all my years on usenet and forums, (before usenet was even popular
and I dialed up to local bulletin boards) I have never seen an athiest
or theist win an argument or concede that the other was correct. It's
never happened and it will never happen. People will hold whatever
belief they have as long as it suits them, based on whatever comforts
and fears give rise to them. Those who "define themselves as athiest"
often hold that belief becuase it provides psychological comfort. To
be fair, theists do the same thing.
Self-declared athiests typically think that their athiesm matters,
otherwise there would be no need of such a label.
By the way, I am atheist, but I have no idea what an Atheist is.
Probably the same as atheism but requiring a nominal fee. :-)
-DaveK
atheism is self defeating. if their point
of view is completely accepted then there
will no longer be any god believers and
thus no need for atheists anymore either.
That makes absolutely no sense. You seem to have a hard time grasping
what words mean. If there are no people who believe in gods, it would
not be necessary to describe the concept of atheism because it would not
be in contrast to theism. If there had never been theists, the word
would not have been invented, but the lack of belief in gods would
remain.
I'm not sure about that last statement. "If there had never been
theists," I would suppose it would be because the idea of god had never
entered anyone's mind, in which case the "lack of belief in gods" would
also not enter anyone's mind.
Otherwise, you are entertaining the prospect of filling your mind with
disbeliefs about the infinite number of things that don't exist! owch!
their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.
Who has the unenviable position those who believe in gods even though
they have no evidence to support their beliefs or those who don't bother
to believe in things that do not have evidence for them?
The whole poing of this is to say that both positions are unenviable.
-DaveK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 08:33:01 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2007 11:48:00 -0800, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not sure about that last statement. "If there had never been
theists," I would suppose it would be because the idea of god had never
entered anyone's mind, in which case the "lack of belief in gods" would
also not enter anyone's mind.
Which would mean that no one would believe in any gods - which is the
definition of atheism. The word might not be coined, but the lack of
belief that the word refers to would exist.
Otherwise, you are entertaining the prospect of filling your mind with
disbeliefs about the infinite number of things that don't exist! owch!
You're conflating an active "disbelief" with lack of belief. Not
collecting stamps isn't actively engaging in a hobby, it's not
engaging in it - there's a difference. We don't all actively not
engage in thousands of hobbies.
The whole poing of this is to say that both positions are unenviable.
What's "unenviable" about not believing that pregnancy is caused by
the Earth Mother? Or not believing that the universe was created by
the Abrahamic god? They're equivalent beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 10:23:47 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Jan 2007 11:48:00 -0800, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
. . . you are entertaining the prospect of filling your mind with
disbeliefs about the infinite number of things that don't exist! owch!
You're conflating an active "disbelief" with lack of belief...
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'atheism' as "disbelief in God or gods."
If you're not actively opposing the beliefs of theists, why is there a
newsgroup dedicated to atheism (and another, dedicated to not being
sure)? If you really had the lack of belief you maintain you have, you
wouldn't feel the need to get together with other atheists to talk about
it, would you?
Not
collecting stamps isn't actively engaging in a hobby, it's not
engaging in it - there's a difference. We don't all actively not
engage in thousands of hobbies.
The whole poing of this is to say that both positions are unenviable.
What's "unenviable" about not believing that pregnancy is caused by
the Earth Mother? Or not believing that the universe was created by
the Abrahamic god? They're equivalent beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 10:57:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 04:23:47 GMT, brian mitchell
<brainmill@fishing.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Jan 2007 11:48:00 -0800, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
. . . you are entertaining the prospect of filling your mind with
disbeliefs about the infinite number of things that don't exist! owch!
You're conflating an active "disbelief" with lack of belief...
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'atheism' as "disbelief in God or gods."
I must have missed the word "active" in its definition of "disbelief",
which is "lack of belief".
If you're not actively opposing the beliefs of theists, why is there a
newsgroup dedicated to atheism
To discuss things of interest to atheists.
(and another, dedicated to not being sure)?
There's a alt.not.being.sure.of.atheism newsgroup? My provider
doesn't carry that one.
If you really had the lack of belief you maintain you have, you
wouldn't feel the need to get together with other atheists to talk about
it, would you?
We don't talk about our lack of belief with each other.
But, if you're not an atheist, why are you discussing it, and what
business is it of yours?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DharmaTroll" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
06 Jan 2007 11:20:26 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 04:23:47 GMT, brian mitchell
<brainmill@fishing.net> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Jan 2007 11:48:00 -0800, "Dave K" <dkotschess@yahoo.com> wrote:
. . . you are entertaining the prospect of filling your mind with
disbeliefs about the infinite number of things that don't exist! owch!
You're conflating an active "disbelief" with lack of belief...
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'atheism' as "disbelief in God or gods."
I must have missed the word "active" in its definition of "disbelief",
which is "lack of belief".
If you're not actively opposing the beliefs of theists, why is there a
newsgroup dedicated to atheism
To discuss things of interest to atheists.
DT> What?? You mean there are actually other things in life to talk
about than God?
(and another, dedicated to not being sure)?
There's a alt.not.being.sure.of.atheism newsgroup?
My provider doesn't carry that one.
If you really had the lack of belief you maintain you have, you
wouldn't feel the need to get together with other atheists to talk about
it, would you?
We don't talk about our lack of belief with each other.
DT> Oh come on. I bet there is a thread about disbelief in Zeus, and
one about disbelief in Apollo, and one about disbelief in Aphrodite --
why, there are probably an endless number of gods that you talk about
disbelieving in. With all the gods in all the cultures, you probably
could fill the entire usenet!
But, if you're not an atheist, why are you discussing it,
and what business is it of yours?
DT> Brian doesn't get enough attention in the Buddhist newsgroups.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
<<In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of
Russell's ninetieth birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude
toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party,
and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's
most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest
atheist. "What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you're wrong?" she
asked. "I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet
Him? What will you say?" Russell was delighted with the question. His
bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this
possible future dialogue, and then he pointed a finger upward and
cried, "Why, I should say, 'God, you gave us insufficient evidence'.">>
-Al Seckel, in Preface to "Bertrand Russell on God and Religion"
.
|
|
|
| User: "brian mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
07 Jan 2007 01:32:06 AM |
|
|
DharmaTroll wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 04:23:47 GMT, brian mitchell
<brainmill@fishing.net> wrote:
If you're not actively opposing the beliefs of theists, why is there a
newsgroup dedicated to atheism
To discuss things of interest to atheists.
DT> What?? You mean there are actually other things in life to talk
about than God?
What else have you talked about, at enormous length, since your return
to trb, apart from God, spooks and beasties, superstition, and all your
other bêtes noir? If ever there was an evangelist for atheism, it's you.
But, if you're not an atheist, why are you discussing it,
and what business is it of yours?
DT> Brian doesn't get enough attention in the Buddhist newsgroups.
It's true, it's true. MInd you, it's hard to get a word in edgewise
these days.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DharmaTroll" |
|
| Title: Re: backwater cesspooling Antitheism |
07 Jan 2007 08:16:39 AM |
|
|
brian mitchell wrote:
DharmaTroll wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 04:23:47 GMT, brian mitchell
<brainmill@fishing.net> wrote:
If you're not actively opposing the beliefs of theists, why is there=
a
newsgroup dedicated to atheism
To discuss things of interest to atheists.
DT> What?? You mean there are actually other things in life to talk
about than God?
What else have you talked about, at enormous length, since your return
to trb, apart from God, spooks and beasties, superstition, and all your
other b=EAtes noir? If ever there was an evangelist for atheism, it's you.
DT> Actually, I've talked very little about God, as I'm on a Buddhist
list, remember? Are you lumping in any false statements or
superstition or even use of logical fallacy with belief in the Santa
Claus in the sky now? Or about when I disagree about anything with
anyone?
For example, atheism has nothing at all to do with Buddhist past lives,
for instance, since the superstition about hard karma explicitly
involves only a thoughtless cosmic mechanism, which isn't operated by
any Beastie whatsoever. I promote soft karma, that there are
psychological patterns that are reinforced and extinguished, while I
point out that hard karma was invented to keep the rich castes rich and
justify keeping the poor poor. Both the 'hard' and 'soft' views are
perfectly compatible with atheism, as neither imply any gods.
What's next? Are you going to label me as an atheist because I have
read James Randi but never read my horoscope in the newspaper, or
because I watch Penn and Teller's '*****' series, or because I don't
believe its likely that flying saucers are abducting people and probing
them anally? Hey, I'm a huge scifi fan, and I'm a Tolkien fan, and I
even went to see Harry Potter at the theater with my young nieces.
Doesn't that count for something?
When I was in college, I went to a Trotskyist meeting, filled with
self-proclaimed 'atheists' and I didn't find anyone I wanted to be
friends with. I then tried out Buddhist groups and found one or two
where there were lots of people who I liked and wanted to hang out
with. Neither group believed in a Cosmic Carpenter, nor did it matter.
What mattered was that I found people with similar interests and
values as a spiritual community. I've written extensively about that
-- where the hell have you been? (Oops, I mentioned 'hell', so I must
be ranting about God and spookies again, eh?)
But, if you're not an atheist, why are you discussing it,
and what business is it of yours?
DT> Brian doesn't get enough attention in the Buddhist newsgroups.
It's true, it's true. Mind you, it's hard to get a word in edgewise these=
days.
DT> Well try talking about Buddhist practice instead of about spooks
and magical beasties, dammit! Especially when you are cross-posting
and playing "Buddhist Ambassador".
You sound more like an anti-anti-theist than a Buddhist, Brian. Heh.
Oh wait -- a second post of whining from Brian:
If there were no Nazis, would Jews gather together? Would gays?
Brian> Well, DT, this is very emotive stuff for someone who prides
himself on the clarity of his reasoning.
DT> What, are you doing a Tang on me? Not emotive at all. I'm not
Jewish or Gay and I wrote this right between my slapstick posts while I
was still giggling. I was being dr | | | | | | | | |
