| 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: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
04 Mar 2007 09:55:21 AM |
|
|
On Mar 4, 12:37 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 03:36:27 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:23 pm, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2007 10:14:19 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 11:08:19 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2:42 pm, "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:12 am, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:06 am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1...@gmail.com>
Re: 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.
That fits with how I'm using the term nowadays, for someone opposed to
theism - as distinct from a:
Contratheist: One who denies the existence of a God or gods.
Both of those girls have an absence of belief in the existence of gods,
and THAT is what characterizes atheism: "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html-Hidequotedtext-
- Show quoted text -
May I suggest that contratheist and antitheist are subsets of atheist?
The atheist has no belief in god(s); the contratheist goes further but
has to have an alternative (contra-); whereas the antitheist argues
that god(s) is a bad idea. A contratheist might be an antitheist too,
but all are under the general rubric of atheists.-
I agree: they share a common class, and also (given a theist-
dominated world) a common interest. However, there are also important
differences between these and other atheists, which have to be
recognized before co-operation on that common interest is even
possible.-
Indeed. I feel there will be a tendency for all atheists to eventually
moved towards an antitheist position. Having rejected god and found
that they are not struck down by celestial lightning and manage to
live a self-defined purposeful life, a moment's reflexion will tell
show them just how dangerous and damaging is the theist position.
Whereas the contratheist might offer a ridiculous alternative, the
only way to go seems to be to reject even that.
No. Plenty of us weren't theist, to reject anything.
All these subset positions are merely how one reacts to what theists
say or do at that particular time.
We're not theists. The theist's God-presumption has no more meaning
outside their beliefs than eg Zeus does outside the Greek myths.
Being outside the theist's belief system we cannot be described
according to presumptions that only apply inside it.
Presumably, you mean: as a person that has no belief in god, called
atheist by those that do?
If I'd meant that I would have said it. But I didn't.
No you actually said something that was meaningless - I was helping
you out.
It's a simple demographic description.
It is clear that you have not the slightest idea what "demographic"
means.
It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
Hey idiot define "demographic" in the context in which you used it!
The a- prefix shows the simple
absence of the prefixed property. We are absent the property of being
theist.
Yes i perfectly understand the grammar. However it is clear that being
described as A-theist is the same as being defined by the absence of
the presumption held within the concept. And this is contrary to what
you said.
Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.
It is still contrary to that which you said. Where is your answer?
If there were no theists then there would be no atheists. The moment a
theist is born - then rest of humanity would be atheists according to
the new theist. Before this event all persons (atheists) would not be
so termed.
No. We would all be atheists, but it would mean even less than it does
now.
No - no one would be "atheist" until a theist was born fool! It would
not mean LESS it would have no meaning at all. The meanig of atheist
relies on the existence of the word theist you fucking goose!
"Being outside the theist's position" is the same as being described
according to the presumptions that apply inside it. So your last
sentence makes no sense.
Good thing it's just your silly straw man then, isn't it?
Whenever a person is struggling to understand a concept they usualy
insert the word "it to obfuscate. This indictates that they are
squirming and do not fully understand their own position. Please state
that which is your "it": your strawman!
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Come ON!!! ***** - answer the question! The truth is that you have
not the slightest idea of what you mean by "it".
The only place where theistic presumptions, premises etc are granted a
priori is inside their religion.
I beleive that you have not the slightest clue what presumption and
premise mean.
But like it or not, if you accept "atheist" you are accepting the
negation of those presumptions.
I think what you really want to say is that being an "atheist" per se
does not amount to a system of belief.
While that is true, it is not what I "wanted to say".
Then it is not at all clear what it was you wanted to say at all.
Learn to read for comprehension.
You dont know what you want to say as you have only the slightest
grasp of the words you are using.
But you cannot avoid the
contrast with theists as you are trying to do. We as atheists ARE
described by in contra distinction to thesim whether we like it or
not.
And I have given reasons why we cannot be described accurately by
presumptions that only have meaning inside theism.
Wrong. We ARE described exactly by the absence of such presumptions
whether we like it or not as this is exactly what being an atheist is.
Do you understand the difference between the absence of these
presumptions, and the presumptions themselves?
Clearly I do!
But even describing us accordingto the absence of these presumptions,
is emotionally prejudicial.
Fucking Hell - give the man a banana!!! In this case you must NOT
accept the term "atheist" in your vocabulary. But you will have to
accpet that it IS without meaning if there is no word "theist".
We're not theist. That's all.-
On Mar 4, 12:37 am, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 03:36:27 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:23 pm, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2007 10:14:19 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:35 pm, Christopher A.Lee <c...@optonline.net> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2007 11:08:19 -0800, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 28, 2:42 pm, "George Dance" <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:12 am, "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:06 am, Sippuuden <s...@macrosoft.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1...@gmail.com>
Re: 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.
That fits with how I'm using the term nowadays, for someone opposed to
theism - as distinct from a:
Contratheist: One who denies the existence of a God or gods.
Both of those girls have an absence of belief in the existence of gods,
and THAT is what characterizes atheism: "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html-Hidequotedtext-
- Show quoted text -
May I suggest that contratheist and antitheist are subsets of atheist?
The atheist has no belief in god(s); the contratheist goes further but
has to have an alternative (contra-); whereas the antitheist argues
that god(s) is a bad idea. A contratheist might be an antitheist too,
but all are under the general rubric of atheists.-
I agree: they share a common class, and also (given a theist-
dominated world) a common interest. However, there are also important
differences between these and other atheists, which have to be
recognized before co-operation on that common interest is even
possible.-
Indeed. I feel there will be a tendency for all atheists to eventually
moved towards an antitheist position. Having rejected god and found
that they are not struck down by celestial lightning and manage to
live a self-defined purposeful life, a moment's reflexion will tell
show them just how dangerous and damaging is the theist position.
Whereas the contratheist might offer a ridiculous alternative, the
only way to go seems to be to reject even that.
No. Plenty of us weren't theist, to reject anything.
All these subset positions are merely how one reacts to what theists
say or do at that particular time.
We're not theists. The theist's God-presumption has no more meaning
outside their beliefs than eg Zeus does outside the Greek myths.
Being outside the theist's belief system we cannot be described
according to presumptions that only apply inside it.
Presumably, you mean: as a person that has no belief in god, called
atheist by those that do?
If I'd meant that I would have said it. But I didn't.
No you actually said something that was meaningless - I was helping
you out.
It's a simple demographic description.
It is clear that you have not the slightest idea what "demographic"
means.
It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about.
Hey idiot define "demographic" in the context in which you used it!
The a- prefix shows the simple
absence of the prefixed property. We are absent the property of being
theist.
Yes i perfectly understand the grammar. However it is clear that being
described as A-theist is the same as being defined by the absence of
the presumption held within the concept. And this is contrary to what
you said.
Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.
It is still contrary to that which you said. Where is your answer?
If there were no theists then there would be no atheists. The moment a
theist is born - then rest of humanity would be atheists according to
the new theist. Before this event all persons (atheists) would not be
so termed.
No. We would all be atheists, but it would mean even less than it does
now.
No - no one would be "atheist" until a theist was born fool! It would
not mean LESS it would have no meaning at all. The meanig of atheist
relies on the existence of the word theist you fucking goose!
"Being outside the theist's position" is the same as being described
according to the presumptions that apply inside it. So your last
sentence makes no sense.
Good thing it's just your silly straw man then, isn't it?
Whenever a person is struggling to understand a concept they usualy
insert the word "it to obfuscate. This indictates that they are
squirming and do not fully understand their own position. Please state
that which is your "it": your strawman!
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending?
Come ON!!! ***** - answer the question! The truth is that you have
not the slightest idea of what you mean by "it".
The only place where theistic presumptions, premises etc are granted a
priori is inside their religion.
I beleive that you have not the slightest clue what presumption and
premise mean.
But like it or not, if you accept "atheist" you are accepting the
negation of those presumptions.
I think what you really want to say is that being an "atheist" per se
does not amount to a system of belief.
While that is true, it is not what I "wanted to say".
Then it is not at all clear what it was you wanted to say at all.
Learn to read for comprehension.
You dont know what you want to say as you have only the slightest
grasp of the words you are using.
But you cannot avoid the
contrast with theists as you are trying to do. We as atheists ARE
described by in contra distinction to thesim whether we like it or
not.
And I have given reasons why we cannot be described accurately by
presumptions that only have meaning inside theism.
Wrong. We ARE described exactly by the absence of such presumptions
whether we like it or not as this is exactly what being an atheist is.
Do you understand the difference between the absence of these
presumptions, and the presumptions themselves?
Clearly I do!
But even describing us accordingto the absence of these presumptions,
is emotionally prejudicial.
Fucking Hell - give the man a banana!!! In this case you must NOT
accept the term "atheist" in your vocabulary. But you will have to
accpet that it IS without meaning if there is no word "theist".
We're not theist. That's all.-
I can agree with this position you and whever "we" is want to take but
you still have a failure in logic above.
And you still have a problem if you are asked what you mean by theist
as you will have to counter by stating that which you do not believe
in which will define you as atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mettas Mother" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
22 Feb 2007 01:02:47 PM |
|
|
Many of you have no idea on how humanity is going to end. Let me give you a
glimpse!
Women always, similar to children, cry that they don't have this and that!
Men eventually give-in in good will. However that turns against men in
time. Feminists had successfully demanded for equal rights and more rights
in the name of equal protection. People who just fight for rights are not
the ones that ultimately win, but rather it is the people who devote and
fulfil their responsibilities who will be winners ultimately. This is
because when one fulfils one's obligations and responsibilities then one's
rights would naturally come.
However feminists had always talked about fighting for equal or more rights
and never about equal responsibilities! That is why when the power balance
shifts to the feminists humanity will begin for its destruction.
Women will eventually take men's rights away. Women will rule the world
while men would be reduced to being sperm donors and retired to the parks!
But how could a world ruled by women without responsibilities last! Yes,
eventually humanity will be destroyed!
There is not a damn thing anybody could do about it!
"James" <bireda@allvantage.com> wrote in message
news:qlmrt216riqigjg9phvp03j29uutr6er2e@4ax.com...
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com>
Re: 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.
Hello,
Unfortunately for the antitheists who wants the idea of God to "go
away", that hasn't happened yet, and according to the Bible, never
will. 1 Pe 1:24,25,
" 24. For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the
flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25. but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word
that was preached to you." (NIV)
Yes, the Bible is full of violence (mainly the OT). Why is that? A
similar statement could be made for many countries of the world
(including the USA), who not only engage in wars, but who execute
wicked people. They also are involved in 'collective violence'.
But God's wars were not aimed at innocent people (like bombs dropping
from the sky do in human wars), rather God as being the human Creator,
has the right to judge the wicked. And He did in the past and will do
so in the near future.
The ancient peoples that God judged were into extreme wickedness (such
as child sacrifice) and as the work Halley's Bible Handbook stated:
"Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that
God did not destroy them sooner than he did."
Those of wise hearts will take note of God's punishment upon the
ancient wicked ones as Jesus brings to our attention at Mt 24:37-39,
" 37. The world will be at ease --banquets and parties and
weddings--just as it was in Noah's time before the sudden coming of
the flood;
39. people wouldn't believe what was going to happen until the flood
actually arrived and took them all away. So shall my coming be."
(Living Bible)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
22 Feb 2007 01:11:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:32:46 -0500, James <bireda@allvantage.com>
wrote:
"Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com>
Re: 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.
Hello,
Unfortunately for the antitheists who wants the idea of God to "go
away", that hasn't happened yet, and according to the Bible, never
will. 1 Pe 1:24,25,
Too bad the original straw men and your response have no
correspondence with reality.
" 24. For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the
flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25. but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word
that was preached to you." (NIV)
Yes, the Bible is full of violence (mainly the OT). Why is that? A
similar statement could be made for many countries of the world
(including the USA), who not only engage in wars, but who execute
wicked people. They also are involved in 'collective violence'.
But God's wars were not aimed at innocent people (like bombs dropping
from the sky do in human wars), rather God as being the human Creator,
has the right to judge the wicked. And He did in the past and will do
so in the near future.
The ancient peoples that God judged were into extreme wickedness (such
as child sacrifice) and as the work Halley's Bible Handbook stated:
"Archaeologists who dig in the ruins of Canaanite cities wonder that
God did not destroy them sooner than he did."
Those of wise hearts will take note of God's punishment upon the
ancient wicked ones as Jesus brings to our attention at Mt 24:37-39,
" 37. The world will be at ease --banquets and parties and
weddings--just as it was in Noah's time before the sudden coming of
the flood;
39. people wouldn't believe what was going to happen until the flood
actually arrived and took them all away. So shall my coming be."
(Living Bible)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
31 Dec 2006 01:35:54 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> bloodied us up
with this:
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 an antitheist is an atheist most of the time, god is not part of the
equation. I would replace the word "god" with the word "religion".
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tuco Ramirez" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
05 Jan 2007 08:23:04 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> bloodied us up
with this:
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 an antitheist is an atheist most of the time, god is not part of the
equation. I would replace the word "god" with the word "religion".
I would replace your current medication with a stronger dose.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
31 Dec 2006 08:31:14 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Sphere" <sphere1952@gmail.com> bloodied us up
with this:
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 an antitheist is an atheist most of the time, god is not part of the
equation. I would replace the word "god" with the word "religion".
My problem with that is that I feel I have religion,
but it is a non-theistic religion.
I have a very specific set of beliefs, and while
I can argue that the whole body of scientific
evidence tends to support my beliefs I cannot
prove them.
My antitheism is a social belief. My religious
beliefs are non-theistic.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
31 Dec 2006 01:27:38 AM |
|
|
Seems quite right to me, although we could probably argue about minor
semantics for a while.
And all too often when morontheists babble against "atheists", what they
describe must really be "antitheists". Compare also with the morontheist
standard claim that atheists don't disbelieve in their gawd, but "deny
him" (as in "believe in him but hate him").
Aaaah, now how to teach the morons the difference between these two
groups...
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 10:45:27 AM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
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.
Not all theists hold this, so I don't really think you can say that you
are an antitheist as this sweeps too far.
I would say Nietzsche is an example of an antitheist, though for
opposite reasons to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 03:36:11 PM |
|
|
knucmo wrote:
Sphere wrote:
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.
Not all theists hold this, so I don't really think you can say that you
are an antitheist as this sweeps too far.
What any theist holds doesn't matter at
all. It is theism as a meme which
I am addressing. Different theists react
differently to the idea of One God, and
it is only their tendency towards behaviors
and collective behavior which count. A
rare example to the contrary means
nothing.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 05:09:52 PM |
|
|
Sphere wrote:
What any theist holds doesn't matter at
all. It is theism as a meme which
I am addressing.
Theism isn't a meme, or if it is, we are not debating about memetics -
this is a fringe theory whose credibility isn't wholly accepted.
Theism, as debated by any philosopher, is a proposition, or theory.
Different theists react
differently to the idea of One God, and
it is only their tendency towards behaviors
and collective behavior which count.
For these behaviours, the individual members, and schools of thought
need to be evaluated. One example sprung to mind the other day:
Pope Benedict XVI carped on about how broadcastings scenes from the
hanging of Saddam Hussein debase and degrade society: Do they? Do
they debase me? Do they debase my sense of moral values? The only
person I see being debased is Saddam being taunted even at his finest
hour. Such claims as the Pope's are meaningless when you translate
them into something that can be evaluated.
A
rare example to the contrary means
nothing.
An unforgivable oversight. No amount of proof of a claim is enough to
validate its thesis, but even the slightest amount of counter-evidence
is sufficient to falsify the claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 05:19:49 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2007 15:09:52 -0800, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Sphere wrote:
What any theist holds doesn't matter at
all. It is theism as a meme which
I am addressing.
Theism isn't a meme, or if it is, we are not debating about memetics -
this is a fringe theory whose credibility isn't wholly accepted.
Theism, as debated by any philosopher, is a proposition, or theory.
It's a meme all right - that how it spreads. It is not a proposition
or a theory but an unjustified belief in something without any
evidence or reason to do so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 07:35:32 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On 1 Jan 2007 15:09:52 -0800, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Sphere wrote:
What any theist holds doesn't matter at
all. It is theism as a meme which
I am addressing.
Theism isn't a meme, or if it is, we are not debating about memetics -
this is a fringe theory whose credibility isn't wholly accepted.
Theism, as debated by any philosopher, is a proposition, or theory.
It's a meme all right - that how it spreads. It is not a proposition
or a theory but an unjustified belief in something without any
evidence or reason to do so.
You are overstating the requirements for
being a meme, but it is a meme alright.
(Actually, the One God is a meme complex.)
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 05:33:36 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
Theism isn't a meme, or if it is, we are not debating about memetics -
this is a fringe theory whose credibility isn't wholly accepted.
Theism, as debated by any philosopher, is a proposition, or theory.
It's a meme all right - that how it spreads.
I think not, or at the least, it's a vague assumption. Calling it a
meme seems to me just another word for a commonly held belief.
Discarding my reservations about memes, there are other reasons why the
belief has spread: Minds not critical enough, Fear of punishment by
authorities if you were found to be an atheist, and ignorance (E. g.
There are some things we can't explain, so there must be a God who
fills in for that).
It is not a proposition
or a theory but an unjustified belief in something without any
evidence or reason to do so.
I don't want to sound rude, but then you cannot know what a proposition
is. A proposition can be as irrational and unjustifiable as you like,
such as "All frogs like to listen Mozart whilst wearing a tutu". The
content of that assertion, is what makes it propositional, that is, it
is either true or false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 05:42:19 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2007 15:33:36 -0800, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
Theism isn't a meme, or if it is, we are not debating about memetics -
this is a fringe theory whose credibility isn't wholly accepted.
Theism, as debated by any philosopher, is a proposition, or theory.
It's a meme all right - that how it spreads.
I think not, or at the least, it's a vague assumption. Calling it a
meme seems to me just another word for a commonly held belief.
No. It's how the belief spreads and mutates.
Discarding my reservations about memes, there are other reasons why the
belief has spread: Minds not critical enough, Fear of punishment by
authorities if you were found to be an atheist, and ignorance (E. g.
There are some things we can't explain, so there must be a God who
fills in for that).
It is not a proposition
or a theory but an unjustified belief in something without any
evidence or reason to do so.
I don't want to sound rude, but then you cannot know what a proposition
is. A proposition can be as irrational and unjustifiable as you like,
such as "All frogs like to listen Mozart whilst wearing a tutu". The
content of that assertion, is what makes it propositional, that is, it
is either true or false.
Then don't be rude. It is an unjustified presumption that people
believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 06:06:13 AM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
No. It's how the belief spreads and mutates.
No. Like I've said in an eariler post to Sphere, the virus analogy
doesn't work. When a virus has infected a cell, biologically speaking,
we might say that the outcome is already determined: And we can show
this examining the parts of the cell that are infected. This isn't the
case with the brain: People who have similar experiences of things, may
have drastically different interpretations of the event. How does the
person who holds that memes actually exist, know how "meme" transfer
takes place in such a`way described above. How do they know whether it
is the same copy of a meme, or if it is a mutation. If it is an
original mutation, what remains of the "original meme"? If nothing of
the original meme is unchanged, then the very idea of a transfer seems
questionable. They can know this with no scientific accuracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 06:16:43 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2007 04:06:13 -0800, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
No. It's how the belief spreads and mutates.
No. Like I've said in an eariler post to Sphere, the virus analogy
doesn't work. When a virus has infected a cell, biologically speaking,
Yes it does.
we might say that the outcome is already determined: And we can show
this examining the parts of the cell that are infected. This isn't the
And religion infects the mind.
case with the brain: People who have similar experiences of things, may
have drastically different interpretations of the event. How does the
person who holds that memes actually exist, know how "meme" transfer
takes place in such a`way described above. How do they know whether it
Easily. It gets told and believed.
is the same copy of a meme, or if it is a mutation. If it is an
original mutation, what remains of the "original meme"? If nothing of
the original meme is unchanged, then the very idea of a transfer seems
questionable. They can know this with no scientific accuracy.
So what?
Man is a software animal, born a lot less developed than other
animals.
The software is implanted after birth from those around, primariliy
the nurturers and care givers.
It includes language, ways of thinking, values etc, and also whichever
god the parent believes.
And it evolves a lot faster than biological evolution.
The software changes with life experience including interaction with
others. The biggest changes come when one gets married and the values
adjust to accommodate the husband's or wife's values.
When the children are born the implanted software is a fusion of that
of both parents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 06:53:22 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
No. Like I've said in an eariler post to Sphere, the virus analogy
doesn't work. When a virus has infected a cell, biologically speaking,
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
we might say that the outcome is already determined: And we can show
this examining the parts of the cell that are infected. This isn't the
And religion infects the mind.
This is a vague statement. Sham rhetoric, about as sensical as saying
"Oranges infect the mind". All thoughts can be said to infect the
mind, that does not mean they have been contracted from elsewhere. The
thought of typing on USENET infects my mind at the present.
case with the brain: People who have similar experiences of things, may
have drastically different interpretations of the event. How does the
person who holds that memes actually exist, know how "meme" transfer
takes place in such a`way described above. How do they know whether it
Easily. It gets told and believed.
This is inaccurate, and vague again. Perceptual and external input
must be processed, to use a computer analogy, or recognised, or it
would be nothing remotely comprehensible to us.
is the same copy of a meme, or if it is a mutation. If it is an
original mutation, what remains of the "original meme"? If nothing of
the original meme is unchanged, then the very idea of a transfer seems
questionable. They can know this with no scientific accuracy.
So what?
Then it has no claims to being a science.
Man is a software animal, born a lot less developed than other
animals.
Incorrect - the mind is not a tabula rasa which is a mere passive
receptacle for external input. I have been setting you up for this
Lockean philosophy, just waiting for the moment.
The software is implanted after birth from those around, primariliy
the nurturers and care givers.
This is some wild Behaviourism. Objects conform to our knowledge of
them, not vice versa.
It includes language, ways of thinking, values etc, and also whichever
god the parent believes.
There are innate concepts, as proven by Chomsky when it comes to
language.
And it evolves a lot faster than biological evolution.
See, there you are, poohooing the fact that it's devoid of scientific
accuracy but still throwing around scientific terms to explain your own
theory, scientific terms that have been backed up by a plethora of
scientific research and case-studies. I detect a hint of
inconsistency. Also, I don't recall there being any conclusive,
scientific case studies concerning memes as of yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 07:01:07 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2007 04:53:22 -0800, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
No. Like I've said in an eariler post to Sphere, the virus analogy
doesn't work. When a virus has infected a cell, biologically speaking,
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.
we might say that the outcome is already determined: And we can show
this examining the parts of the cell that are infected. This isn't the
And religion infects the mind.
This is a vague statement. Sham rhetoric, about as sensical as saying
"Oranges infect the mind". All thoughts can be said to infect the
mind, that does not mean they have been contracted from elsewhere. The
thought of typing on USENET infects my mind at the present.
Is an orange an idea that gets implanted and mutates as it is retold?
case with the brain: People who have similar experiences of things, may
have drastically different interpretations of the event. How does the
person who holds that memes actually exist, know how "meme" transfer
takes place in such a`way described above. How do they know whether it
Easily. It gets told and believed.
This is inaccurate, and vague again. Perceptual and external input
must be processed, to use a computer analogy, or recognised, or it
would be nothing remotely comprehensible to us.
It is much simplified rather than inaccurate and vague.
is the same copy of a meme, or if it is a mutation. If it is an
original mutation, what remains of the "original meme"? If nothing of
the original meme is unchanged, then the very idea of a transfer seems
questionable. They can know this with no scientific accuracy.
So what?
Then it has no claims to being a science.
Nobody ever said it was.
It is a way of explaining how ideas take hold, spread and mutate.
Man is a software animal, born a lot less developed than other
animals.
Incorrect - the mind is not a tabula rasa which is a mere passive
receptacle for external input. I have been setting you up for this
Lockean philosophy, just waiting for the moment.
Good thinhg that's just your dishonest straw man then, isn't it?
Why don't you address what was said, rather than inventing straw men?
The software is implanted after birth from those around, primariliy
the nurturers and care givers.
This is some wild Behaviourism. Objects conform to our knowledge of
them, not vice versa.
Another straw man.
It includes language, ways of thinking, values etc, and also whichever
god the parent believes.
There are innate concepts, as proven by Chomsky when it comes to
language.
Translation: you can't address points.
And it evolves a lot faster than biological evolution.
See, there you are, poohooing the fact that it's devoid of scientific
accuracy but still throwing around scientific terms to explain your own
theory, scientific terms that have been backed up by a plethora of
scientific research and case-studies. I detect a hint of
inconsistency. Also, I don't recall there being any conclusive,
scientific case studies concerning memes as of yet.
Where do I do that, idiot?
.
|
|
|
| User: "knucmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 07:43:56 AM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
This is a vague statement. Sham rhetoric, about as sensical as saying
"Oranges infect the mind". All thoughts can be said to infect the
mind, that does not mean they have been contracted from elsewhere. The
thought of typing on USENET infects my mind at the present.
Is an orange an idea that gets implanted and mutates as it is retold?
The concept of an orange may be "implanted", and it certainly my mutate
as it is retold, in different contexts. For instance, we might have
the simple concept of an apple as a fruit, but when some is told the
story of Adam of Eve, the apple may take on a more symbolic side.
case with the brain: People who have similar experiences of things, may
have drastically different interpretations of the event. How does the
person who holds that memes actually exist, know how "meme" transfer
takes place in such a`way described above. How do they know whether it
Easily. It gets told and believed.
This is inaccurate, and vague again. Perceptual and external input
must be processed, to use a computer analogy, or recognised, or it
would be nothing remotely comprehensible to us.
It is much simplified rather than inaccurate and vague.
Whilst all persons will hold religion is believed, your
"simplification" doesn't really explain anything. It ignores the
context of religion, being brought up in a religious
family/neighbourhood, and, all the other reasons I gave as to why
religion might be believed, which you have dismissed, despite them
being pertinent.
is the same copy of a meme, or if it is a mutation. If it is an
original mutation, what remains of the "original meme"? If nothing of
the original meme is unchanged, then the very idea of a transfer seems
questionable. They can know this with no scientific accuracy.
So what?
Then it has no claims to being a science.
Nobody ever said it was.
When any theory or school of thought appropriates terms from
established science such as "natural selection", "propagation", then it
is making a claim to being science. These terms are used in conjunction
with the scientific method, but memetic studies are not following the
scientific method. If it is using these terms falsely, and without the
scientific justification to back them up, then it is rightly labelled a
pseudo-science.
It is a way of explaining how ideas take hold, spread and mutate.
Man is a software animal, born a lot less developed than other
animals.
Incorrect - the mind is not a tabula rasa which is a mere passive
receptacle for external input. I have been setting you up for this
Lockean philosophy, just waiting for the moment.
Good thinhg that's just your dishonest straw man then, isn't it?
Right then. As I don't happen to think there's anything fallacious in
my statement above, we'd better clear something up - do you think the
mind is a blank state, ready to be imprinted by "memes" and the like.
Why don't you address what was said, rather than inventing straw men?
See above.
The software is implanted after birth from those around, primariliy
the nurturers and care givers.
This is some wild Behaviourism. Objects conform to our knowledge of
them, not vice versa.
Another straw man.
Not so. You seem to be saying that we are not born with any innate
concepts or ideas. You're going to need to explain your position to
clear up any ambiguity to it.
It includes language, ways of thinking, values etc, and also whichever
god the parent believes.
There are innate concepts, as proven by Chomsky when it comes to
language.
Translation: you can't address points.
Then perhaps you need to brush up your translation, my dear friend. I
shall paraphrase what you said: "The ideas are implanted after birth
(hence, not a priori) and these ideas include language, ways of
thinking".
And it evolves a lot faster than biological evolution.
See, there you are, poohooing the fact that it's devoid of scientific
accuracy but still throwing around scientific terms to explain your own
theory, scientific terms that have been backed up by a plethora of
scientific research and case-studies. I detect a hint of
inconsistency. Also, I don't recall there being any conclusive,
scientific case studies concerning memes as of yet.
Where do I do that, idiot?
You use terms, such as biological evolution, the very concept of
evolution, both of which conform to the scientific method to describe
your theory, and yet you quite willingly concede that it [memetics] is
not scientific. That, my friend, is inconsistency, and judging by your
indignance, graceless inconsistency.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 06:48:18 AM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On 2 Jan 2007 04:06:13 -0800, "knucmo" <stevejouanny@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
No. It's how the belief spreads and mutates.
No. Like I've said in an eariler post to Sphere, the virus analogy
doesn't work. When a virus has infected a cell, biologically speaking,
Yes it does.
we might say that the outcome is already determined: And we can show
this examining the parts of the cell that are infected. This isn't the
And religion infects the mind.
case with the brain: People who have similar experiences of things, may
have drastically different interpretations of the event. How does the
person who holds that memes actually exist, know how "meme" transfer
takes place in such a`way described above. How do they know whether it
Easily. It gets told and believed.
is the same copy of a meme, or if it is a mutation. If it is an
original mutation, what remains of the "original meme"? If nothing of
the original meme is unchanged, then the very idea of a transfer seems
questionable. They can know this with no scientific accuracy.
So what?
Man is a software animal, born a lot less developed than other
animals.
The software is implanted after birth from those around, primariliy
the nurturers and care givers.
It includes language, ways of thinking, values etc, and also whichever
god the parent believes.
And it evolves a lot faster than biological evolution.
The software changes with life experience including interaction with
others. The biggest changes come when one gets married and the values
adjust to accommodate the husband's or wife's values.
When the children are born the implanted software is a fusion of that
of both parents.
Soooooo by that reasoning then So Atheisim is also a virus?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 07:18:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
....
Soooooo by that reasoning then So Atheisim is also a virus?
Ignoring the rather weak virus analogy, Atheism as
an idea is a meme -- or more correctly, there are
a number of Atheist memes.
The lack of transmittal of an idea would not be a
meme, but I'm not convinced by the Atheist
argument that this is somehow Atheism. The
Atheist meme that simply not believing there
is a God is Atheism is just that -- a meme -- and
doesn't properly partition anything. (All noise and
thunder signifying nothing.) In fact, this Atheist
notion is just as bad as the One God idea -- trying
to force others into a mold of your choosing.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sphere" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
02 Jan 2007 07:10:39 PM |
|
|
knucmo wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
No. It's how the belief spreads and mutates.
No. Like I've said in an eariler post to Sphere, the virus analogy
doesn't work. When a virus has infected a cell, biologically speaking,
we might say that the outcome is already determined: And we can show
this examining the parts of the cell that are infected. This isn't the
case with the brain: People who have similar experiences of things, may
have drastically different interpretations of the event. How does the
person who holds that memes actually exist, know how "meme" transfer
takes place in such a`way described above. How do they know whether it
is the same copy of a meme, or if it is a mutation. If it is an
original mutation, what remains of the "original meme"? If nothing of
the original meme is unchanged, then the very idea of a transfer seems
questionable. They can know this with no scientific accuracy.
Since I never mentioned any virus analogy, I might
have ignored you.
With memes the 'infected' agent isn't a brain, but
a mind. Memes behave a bit like genetic transfer
between bacteria, but the human mind has several
more degrees of freedom than a bacterium has.
---
No essence. No permanence. No perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Antitheism |
01 Jan 2007 06:41:47 PM |
|
|
knucmo wrote:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
Theism isn't a meme, or if it is, we are not debating about memetics -
this is a fringe theory whose credibility isn't wholly accepted.
Theism, as debated by any philosopher, is a proposition, or theory.
It's a meme all right - that how it spreads.
I think not, or at the least, it's a vague assumption. Calling it a
meme seems to me just another word for a commonly held belief.
Discarding my reservations about memes, there are other reasons why the
belief has spread: Minds not critical enough, Fear of punishment by
authorities if you were found to be an atheist, and ignorance (E. g.
There are some things we can't explain, so there must be a God who
fills in for that).
Meme is a good description. Cultural Virus is another one. The reason
why this works as a description of theism is that it is part of an
indoctrinaire process that is passed on to children without critical
apprasial.
It is not a proposition
or a theory but an unjustified belief in something without any
evidence or reason to do so.
I don't want to sound rude, but then you cannot know what a proposition
is. A proposition can be as irrational and unjustifiable as you like,
such as "All frogs like to listen Mozart whilst wearing a tutu". The
content of that assertion, is what makes it propositional, that is, it
is either true or false.
But there is no contect to appraise in "god created heaven and earth"
as we have no reference points to validate. God ends up being a total
confusion of contrdictory ideas, heaven is ill defined, and we have no
experience of the start of the earth. Further more every attempt that
children make to understand god is beset with disinformation, slight of
hand and deception. The god issue is dodged, he is invisible,
everywhere, nowhere, mysterious, vengeful, loving, a destroyer, a
creator, beyond reach yet here with us. In fact every sensory
experience we have with reality is contradicted by god: contradicted
like every other imaginary invisible friend, like all fantasies.
But play Mozart to a frog and se if he dons a tutu and you can falsify
your statement.
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
