"chazwin" <chazwyman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168105538.539738.227120@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

buddhapest wrote:

"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.

their position is completely necessitated
by the existence of god believers. not quite
an enviable position.

This has got to be the most assinine, bone-headed statement I have
heard in a long while.
Only a twit who has an invisible friend in the sky could make such a
mind bendingly ridiculous statement.
As an atheist I don't give a flying ***** that my position will be self
defeating because I am so much more than an atheist. My atheism is only
one tiny and insignificant factor of my wealth of knowledge and systems
of thought: of no more importance to me of my rejection of the concept
of fairies, and unicorns.
As an antitheist I look forward to the day when knumbskulls who hold
archaic and unfounded superstitions will cease to do so - what joy to
have a self defeating belief system, little different from my anti-war,
anti-nazi and anti-racist positions.
As a theist you have only got to look forward to 1) wasting your sorry
life on a belief system which guarentees your misery in the hope of
salvation, 2) looking forward to the diminution of the relevance and
importance of your god and your so called "system" of belief.

Fac ut vivas!

thank you for your entry into the 'watch
me hoop jump whilst my buttons are
being pushed' competition. the competition
is especially tough this year and i can tell
by your entry that you're attempting to turn
pro.

hang in there. i'm rooting for you.

buddapest babbles> 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.

chazwin> This has got to be the most asinine, bone-headed statement I
have heard in a long while. Only a twit who has an invisible friend in
the sky could make such a mind bendingly ridiculous statement. As an
antitheist I look forward to the day when knumbskulls who hold archaic
and unfounded superstitions will cease to do so -

DT> First of all, well-said chaz! I agree that disagreeing with people
who make claims without evidence of God or souls, angels, ghosts,
psychic powers, astrology, and so forth are not self-defeating. They
will continue to be rational, even if irrational wackos aren't around.
Perhaps buddapest means by 'atheist' those few inverse fundamentalists
who like to harass superstitionists. Or who subscribe to communism as
a religion.

The rational and clear thinking Buddhist, DaveK, (even though we
disagree on many issues,) makes an excellent point about this:

DaveK> 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
atheist" 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 atheist" by the idea of negation (non-existence.)
I do not hold the view "God exists." So an atheist (or even a theist
for that matter) might define me as an athiest. But I do not identify
myself as an atheist, because I do not hold the view "God does not
exist."

DT> Precisely! Theists, and other dogmatic spookists like buddhapest
and Tang, try to do the same trick as the Christian Fundamentalists
when they say "either you are for God or you are for the Devil!" So if
by 'atheism' you mean 'Satanism' or 'cold dogmatic scientism' the label
with which Tang likes to smear people who reject his spookery, then of
course buddhapest is correct that the term depends on the existence of
theists. And the same with Tang using the term 'scientistic' and
associating that with physicalists or realists.

You don't have to be a Satanist or whatever to simply not accept the
original superstition, as Dave and chazwin (and I) do not. There is no
symmetry. Not accepting a believe about God or other beasties is not
the same as holding a dogmatic believe about Not-God, as buddapest,
Tang, and Jerry Falwell would try to have us believe.

That's why I use the terms naturalist or agnostic. (Or meta-agnostic
-- someone who has no view and so doesn't know whether they are an
agnostic or not! Heh!) I find that Thomas Henry Huxley expressed the
closest to my metaphysical view as a single principle which he called
'agnosticism' over a century ago:

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of
this lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That
principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as
the writer (the Buddha) who said, "Try all things, hold fast to that
which is good"; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply
illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason
for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes;
it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle
may expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far
as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And
negatively, in matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions
are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

I personally prefer the term Naturalism and have called myself a Bright
Naturalist Buddhist. In fact, there is little (maybe nothing) which I
find absurd or offensive or with which I take serious disagreement on
http://www.naturalism.org/ and I suggest all parties take a look at the
excellent essays on the site.

I also think that naturalism goes quite well with Buddhism. For me,
any form of Buddhism that wasn't naturalistic, and which posited
literal gods, ghosts, faeries, other planes, reincarnation, or Tang's
ineffable Kingdom of Grace, is useless to me, and has nothing
whatsoever to do with my Buddhist practice. Maybe other Buddhists find
those things helpful. I don't, and I think that it is unfortunate that
they carry the cultural meme-infested dirt from Asia when they
transport the beautiful Lotus blossom of Buddhism to American and
European soil.

One can easily be a Buddhist and be a bright (someone who doesn't
believe in any spooks, gods, magic powers, and so forth). The
excellent book "Buddhism Without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor is a
great introduction to Buddhism, and expresses this point quite well.

Christopher> We're talking about people whose view of reality is
determined by what their religion says rather than finding out how
reality works.

buddhapest> this is priceless. might you then explain to us how
reality works?

DT> Once again, buddhapest has made a complete bonehead of himself.
How reality works is usually spoken of in terms of 'laws'. While the
believers in gods and spookery may like to claim that these laws (as
well as reality) are legislated by minds, the realists and naturalists
claim that these laws are natural objective facts that pertain to
reality. How reality works is that it follows these laws or patterns.
(We may never know the laws precisely, and our knowledge of them is
always open to revision, as Einstein revised Newton's laws -- but then
of course, certainty is only craved for by the anti-physicalists and
theists, not by naturalists.)

To demonstrate how reality works, turn on a light bulb, or a TV set, or
use a microwave oven. We have very powerful quantitative rigor and
precision and unparalleled predictability of how reality works to even
build these amazing gizmos.

A more emotionally moving, experiential, and convincing method,
however, would not be explain anything to buddhapest or other
spookists, but rather to ask buddhapest to shove his head into a bucket
of cold ice water. No matter how many gods, astral planes, psychic
powers, or ineffable gremlins you believe in, you will have an
unpleasant experience and find that you must remove your head from the
bucket and breathe to remain alive to even continue to babble about
your superstitions. That's how reality works! Forget explaining.
Simply try some ice-water-bucket meditation, and find how reality
works, no matter what you believe, or how many gods and astral planes
you can conjure up.

--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa


"To compete with traditional religion in the marketplace of belief,
atheists must articulate their own positive, comprehensive world-view,
and that, of course, is naturalism. Grounded in a rationally defensible
commitment to reason and evidence (not faith!), naturalism situates the
human person in the grandest, most inspiring context - the untamed
cosmos; by understanding the causal origins of ourselves and our
behavior it gives us the practical basis for humane and effective
policies; by acknowledging that we aren't self-chosen, ultimately
autonomous agents, it supports a compassionate ethics of interpersonal
regard and self-acceptance; and it protects us from absolutism by tying
belief to the requirement of evidence, which helps to keep us
democratic."
-Tom Clark