| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nomen Nescio" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2007 03:11:45 AM |
| Object: |
Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
The Bible says that all we need is faith in Jesus Christ to
enter God's Kingdom in the hereafter. But Jesus also noted
that most people's level of faith did not amount to the size
of a mustard seed (Matt 17:20). And if you are lukewarm,
God promises to spew you out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).
Do you struggle with doubts? Is it hard to feel God's
invisible omnipresence in your life, especially during
a crisis of faith? Do you ever worry that when Judgement
Day comes, that God will look into your heart and see
that you weren't entirely convinced that He even existed?
If this describes you, you will no doubt be interested
in our faith-increasing hypnosis sessions. Our sessions
help you to learn to think Godly thoughts and to fight
the unconstructive doubts that Satan places in your mind
to lead you from the narrow path of salvation. You'll
also be able to control unwanted sexual urges and break
the addiction to pornography so many people suffer from.
Hypnosis is a natural, God-created process, and while
it's true that hypnosis done for the wrong reasons can
be harmful, it is safe and powerful when used as a tool
for the service and glorification of the Lord.
For more information on our free services, send e-mail to:
nthcomplexity@yahoo.com
-- Nth Complexity --
-- Have A Nice Day! --
"However, these criteria, admirable as they are, are insufficient
for a *liberatory* postmodern science: they liberate human beings
from the tyranny of 'absolute truth' and 'objective reality', but
not necessarily from the tyranny of other human beings. In Andrew
Ross' words, we need a science 'that will be publicly answerable
and of some service to progressive interests.'" -- A.D.S.
.
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 02:58:48 PM |
|
|
If this describes you, you will no doubt be interested
in our faith-increasing hypnosis sessions.
***** me! Surely this is mental abuse of the worst kind - right up there with
indoctrinating kids with your mythological crap. What are the odds that you
are looking to prey (no pun intended) on those down on their luck & then
charge them a fucking fortune for the privilege?
Our sessions
help you to learn to think Godly thoughts and to fight
the unconstructive doubts that Satan places in your mind
to lead you from the narrow path of salvation. You'll
also be able to control unwanted sexual urges and break
the addiction to pornography so many people suffer from.
Yes, you keep on with the sexual repression if it helps you control your
"flock". I'd much rather be addicted to porn than your brand of low grade
filth any day of the week.
Hypnosis is a natural, God-created process,
Where is the evidence of a god created process?
and while
it's true that hypnosis done for the wrong reasons can
be harmful,
Your reasons are the wrong reasons. This is brainwashing by any other name.
You & your ilk are one of the most despicable bunch of bastards I've had the
misfortune to come across. Now *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 02:09:11 PM |
|
|
In article <3c6d680a2e3cc523a2475f80c07ca244@dizum.com> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> writes:
I'm sure I'm not.
Now, what shall we talk about next?
How about this?:
Do you struggle with doubts? Is it hard to feel God's
invisible omnipresence in your life, especially during
a crisis of faith? Do you ever worry that when Judgement
Day comes, that God will look into your heart and see
that you weren't entirely convinced that He even existed?
If this describes you, you will no doubt be interested
in our faith-increasing hypnosis sessions.
Hypnotize your way to belief.
I think that requires no further comment on my part.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 08:34:29 AM |
|
|
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:3c6d680a2e3cc523a2475f80c07ca244@dizum.com:
The Bible says that all we need is faith in Jesus Christ to
enter God's Kingdom in the hereafter.
It also says God created an evil magic talking walking snake.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Literature is mostly about having sex, and not much about having babies;
life is the other way round."
David Lodge
(01/28/1935 - )
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 09:03:35 AM |
|
|
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Are you sure you're going to heaven?
Usually it's not cloudy here, and from watching movies it's obvious
that heaven is in a cloudy place. Since there isn't a heaven here in
Arizona, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to heaven (assuming I die here)
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 12:55:33 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 1:11 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
The Bible says that all we need is faith in Jesus Christ to
enter God's Kingdom in the hereafter. But Jesus also noted
that most people's level of faith did not amount to the size
of a mustard seed (Matt 17:20). And if you are lukewarm,
God promises to spew you out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).
Do you struggle with doubts? Is it hard to feel God's
invisible omnipresence in your life, especially during
a crisis of faith? Do you ever worry that when Judgement
Day comes, that God will look into your heart and see
that you weren't entirely convinced that He even existed?
If this describes you, you will no doubt be interested
in our faith-increasing hypnosis sessions. Our sessions
help you to learn to think Godly thoughts and to fight
the unconstructive doubts that Satan places in your mind
to lead you from the narrow path of salvation. You'll
also be able to control unwanted sexual urges and break
the addiction to pornography so many people suffer from.
Hypnosis is a natural, God-created process, and while
it's true that hypnosis done for the wrong reasons can
be harmful, it is safe and powerful when used as a tool
for the service and glorification of the Lord.
What part of "atheism" can't you wrap your head around?
Please provide evidence that any god exists. Put it here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Once you've done that, provide evidence that any part of human
consciousness survives the death of the brain. Put it here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Davej" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 01:04:50 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 3:11 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
The Bible says that all we need is faith in Jesus Christ to
enter God's Kingdom in the hereafter.
The Bible was written by kooks. Read Exodus 20-31 and have a good
laugh.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 09:07:51 AM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 3:11 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
The Bible says that all we need is faith in Jesus Christ to
enter God's Kingdom in the hereafter. But Jesus also noted
that most people's level of faith did not amount to the size
of a mustard seed (Matt 17:20). And if you are lukewarm,
God promises to spew you out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).
Do you struggle with doubts? Is it hard to feel God's
invisible omnipresence in your life, especially during
a crisis of faith? Do you ever worry that when Judgement
Day comes, that God will look into your heart and see
that you weren't entirely convinced that He even existed?
If this describes you, you will no doubt be interested
in our faith-increasing hypnosis sessions. Our sessions
help you to learn to think Godly thoughts and to fight
the unconstructive doubts that Satan places in your mind
to lead you from the narrow path of salvation. You'll
also be able to control unwanted sexual urges and break
the addiction to pornography so many people suffer from.
Hypnosis is a natural, God-created process, and while
it's true that hypnosis done for the wrong reasons can
be harmful, it is safe and powerful when used as a tool
for the service and glorification of the Lord.
For more information on our free services, send e-mail to:
nthcomplex...@yahoo.com
-- Nth Complexity --
-- Have A Nice Day! --
"However, these criteria, admirable as they are, are insufficient
for a *liberatory* postmodern science: they liberate human beings
from the tyranny of 'absolute truth' and 'objective reality', but
not necessarily from the tyranny of other human beings. In Andrew
Ross' words, we need a science 'that will be publicly answerable
and of some service to progressive interests.'" -- A.D.S.
(Just nas soon as i can find it.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Medusa" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 05:42:25 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 3:11 am, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
The Bible says that all we need is faith in Jesus Christ to
enter God's Kingdom in the hereafter. But Jesus also noted
that most people's level of faith did not amount to the size
of a mustard seed (Matt 17:20). And if you are lukewarm,
God promises to spew you out of His mouth (Rev 3:16).
I don't believe in Disneyworld in the sky, so stuff it.
Medusa
AA #2281
.
|
|
|
| User: "mstrhypno" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 08:17:36 PM |
|
|
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." - The Buddha
Works for me and it makes sense, even to the atheistic side, I would
think...
Personally, I find it completely illogical to make a definitive
statement about something that one will only surely know about after
one has died. Color me crazy, but isn't atheism just as illogical as
any of the religious beliefs, simply because it ignores the
POSSIBILITY of the existence of deity? Because, if you allow that
possibility, then you are not an atheist, but an AGNOSTIC!
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to
listen." ~Tommy Smothers
And I completely agree.
"When any government, or church for that matter, undertakes to say to
it's subjects, 'this you may not read, this you must not see, this you
are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no
matter how holy the motive."- 'If This Goes On' by Robert A. Heinlein
And that applies to atheism just as much as any other movement. More
and more I am seeing in the materials coming from atheist spokespeople
statements that border on, if not outright espouse, censorship of any
religious thought.
For my part, as a free-thinking person, I am not buying THAT.
I reserve the right to make my own decisions about religion, deity or
its lack in the universe and refuse to have those decisions dictated
to me.
I would strongly suggest that BOTH sides of this issue move in that
direction. It saves on bandwidth and costs for Tums for all of the
indigestion that discussions like this always seem to cause.
With respect for BOTH sides of the issue,
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
11 Oct 2007 09:56:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:17:36 -0000, mstrhypno
<mstrhypno@earthlink.net> wrote:
Personally, I find it completely illogical to make a definitive
statement about something that one will only surely know about after
one has died. Color me crazy, but isn't atheism just as illogical as
any of the religious beliefs, simply because it ignores the
POSSIBILITY of the existence of deity? Because, if you allow that
possibility, then you are not an atheist, but an AGNOSTIC!
Atheism qua atheism, is a statement about belief, agnosticism one
about knowledge. The two can (and often do) overlap.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
12 Oct 2007 01:40:56 PM |
|
|
On Oct 11, 6:17 pm, mstrhypno <mstrhy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." - The Buddha
Works for me and it makes sense, even to the atheistic side, I would
think...
Many atheists are also inclined towards Buddhism, and this is the
reason. I love this quote; I quote it at all kinds of theists who
claim that all flavors of theism are equal/the same.
Personally, I find it completely illogical to make a definitive
statement about something that one will only surely know about after
one has died. Color me crazy, but isn't atheism just as illogical as
any of the religious beliefs, simply because it ignores the
POSSIBILITY of the existence of deity?
Well, it's also possible that the universe is ruled over by the
Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Turquoise Pigs of the Sonora.
You can't prove they don't exist, and you can't prove that some god
doesn't exist - you can't prove negatives. Just because you can't
prove negatives doesn't mean that you have to believe in the positive
assertions.
The problem is, there's no *evidence* for the IPU, Flying Turquoise
Pigs, or any god. Therefore, belief in them *is* illogical, while the
absence of belief in them is the most reasonable position, given that
aforementioned paucity of evidence.
Because, if you allow that
possibility, then you are not an atheist, but an AGNOSTIC!
See above.
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to
listen." ~Tommy Smothers
And I completely agree.
And so do I.
"When any government, or church for that matter, undertakes to say to
it's subjects, 'this you may not read, this you must not see, this you
are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no
matter how holy the motive."- 'If This Goes On' by Robert A. Heinlein
And that applies to atheism just as much as any other movement.
Excuse me, Sparky, but atheism is *not* a "movement." Atheism is the
condition of not having god beliefs. That's all it is.
However, I will concede that atheists, and atheist writers, have a
certain prominence in the media these days. That's because we
atheists are damn sick and tired of being treated as second-class
citizens; and told that we're not patriots; and being told what we do
and do not believe; and quite frankly, *we're not gonna take it
anymore.*
More
and more I am seeing in the materials coming from atheist spokespeople
statements that border on, if not outright espouse, censorship of any
religious thought.
Funny, I read all the atheist materials out there, and I haven't seen
*any* of that. What I see is atheists standing up for themselves and
calling a spade a spade, which is to say, that religion is nothing but
superstition and that faith is nothing but gullibility, and that
religion and faith have no official place in the government of a
diverse, democratic nation.
However, nowhere do I see any calls for censorship of religion. I
think you're projecting.
For my part, as a free-thinking person, I am not buying THAT.
I reserve the right to make my own decisions about religion, deity or
its lack in the universe and refuse to have those decisions dictated
to me.
I'm down with that. Nobody is proposing to dictate decisions of
conscience or belief to you. Have a hit and mellow out, fer christ's
sake.
I would strongly suggest that BOTH sides of this issue move in that
direction. It saves on bandwidth and costs for Tums for all of the
indigestion that discussions like this always seem to cause.
The problem is *theists*. They won't move towards any kind of
detente. For instance, they won't desist from proselytizing in this
newsgroup. They've just *got* to round up all the unbelievers and get
us into the fold, and they won't rest until they do. So go preach at
them, will ya?
With respect for BOTH sides of the issue,
I respect the other side's right to hold their beliefs. I don't have
to respect them for believing those beliefs. I don't have to respect
the substance of the beliefs. I don't have to let them walk all over
me as an unbeliever. I don't have to let them get away with special
pleading for religion. They can believe whatever silly ***** they want
to, as long as they keep it out of my face and don't pass legislation
enshrining their beliefs.
That's not censorship, that's called "standing up for yourself."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "mstrhypno" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
12 Oct 2007 02:28:58 PM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 12:40 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:17 pm, mstrhypno <mstrhy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." - The Buddha
Works for me and it makes sense, even to the atheistic side, I would
think...
Many atheists are also inclined towards Buddhism, and this is the
reason. I love this quote; I quote it at all kinds of theists who
claim that all flavors of theism are equal/the same.
Personally, I find it completely illogical to make a definitive
statement about something that one will only surely know about after
one has died. Color me crazy, but isn't atheism just as illogical as
any of the religious beliefs, simply because it ignores the
POSSIBILITY of the existence of deity?
Well, it's also possible that the universe is ruled over by the
Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Turquoise Pigs of the Sonora.
You can't prove they don't exist, and you can't prove that some god
doesn't exist - you can't prove negatives. Just because you can't
prove negatives doesn't mean that you have to believe in the positive
assertions.
The problem is, there's no *evidence* for the IPU, Flying Turquoise
Pigs, or any god. Therefore, belief in them *is* illogical, while the
absence of belief in them is the most reasonable position, given that
aforementioned paucity of evidence.
Because, if you allow that
possibility, then you are not an atheist, but an AGNOSTIC!
See above.
Thanks for proving my point. By definition an atheist is one who
denies the possibility of deity. An agnostic allows the possibility.
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to
listen." ~Tommy Smothers
And I completely agree.
And so do I.
"When any government, or church for that matter, undertakes to say to
it's subjects, 'this you may not read, this you must not see, this you
are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no
matter how holy the motive."- 'If This Goes On' by Robert A. Heinlein
And that applies to atheism just as much as any other movement.
Excuse me, Sparky, but atheism is *not* a "movement." Atheism is the
condition of not having god beliefs. That's all it is.
Excuse me, but when a large, or even small mass of people are pushing
a political, ethical or moral concept, it is a movement, by
definition. It may not be organized (see the anti-war movement right
now, for a superb example), but it is still a movement.
Add to that that there are several registered 501 (c) 3 corporations
listed as Atheist Societies in the USA and your statement that it is
not a movement is refuted.
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
However, I will concede that atheists, and atheist writers, have a
certain prominence in the media these days. That's because we
atheists are damn sick and tired of being treated as second-class
citizens; and told that we're not patriots; and being told what we do
and do not believe; and quite frankly, *we're not gonna take it
anymore.*
No argument there. Try being a mentalist, magician or hypnotist,
sometime.... lol...
More
and more I am seeing in the materials coming from atheist spokespeople
statements that border on, if not outright espouse, censorship of any
religious thought.
Funny, I read all the atheist materials out there, and I haven't seen
*any* of that. What I see is atheists standing up for themselves and
calling a spade a spade, which is to say, that religion is nothing but
superstition and that faith is nothing but gullibility, and that
religion and faith have no official place in the government of a
diverse, democratic nation.
However, nowhere do I see any calls for censorship of religion. I
think you're projecting.
Really? Removal of religious holidays from calendars, removal of
religious holidays from television shows? Removal of even the mention
of religion in schools as part of historical education?
If that's not censorship, I would certainly love to see your
definition of what is...
For my part, as a free-thinking person, I am not buying THAT.
I reserve the right to make my own decisions about religion, deity or
its lack in the universe and refuse to have those decisions dictated
to me.
I'm down with that. Nobody is proposing to dictate decisions of
conscience or belief to you. Have a hit and mellow out, fer christ's
sake.
Sorry, but I'm allergic to the herb. DEADLY allergic on the medical
side. Which sucks, trust me.
I would strongly suggest that BOTH sides of this issue move in that
direction. It saves on bandwidth and costs for Tums for all of the
indigestion that discussions like this always seem to cause.
The problem is *theists*. They won't move towards any kind of
detente. For instance, they won't desist from proselytizing in this
newsgroup. They've just *got* to round up all the unbelievers and get
us into the fold, and they won't rest until they do. So go preach at
them, will ya?
I have been - for years. Deaf ears seem to be on both sides of the
issue, which is really too bad.
With respect for BOTH sides of the issue,
I respect the other side's right to hold their beliefs. I don't have
to respect them for believing those beliefs.
Neat trick! Possible, but very difficult to do.
I don't have to respect
the substance of the beliefs. I don't have to let them walk all over
me as an unbeliever. I don't have to let them get away with special
pleading for religion. They can believe whatever silly ***** they want
to, as long as they keep it out of my face and don't pass legislation
enshrining their beliefs.
Great. I'm down with that, too. And, as an entertainer, I already
work on most religious holidays anyway...
That's not censorship, that's called "standing up for yourself."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
(Hearding cats is easy. Just make sure that there's a window, some
sunlight and a big enough pillow IN that sunlight... then make sure
that the pillow will STAY in the sunlight...
Multiple laps in a room work, too... especially if the people who own
those laps are allergic TO cats... cats have a tropism for people
with allergies to them... as all cat owners and allergy sufferers
know...! ;) )
Thanks for the response. I enjoyed it!
Lee Darrow, C.H.
http://www.leedarrow.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
12 Oct 2007 05:37:47 PM |
|
|
On Oct 12, 12:28 pm, mstrhypno <mstrhy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 12, 12:40 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:17 pm, mstrhypno <mstrhy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
live up to it." - The Buddha
Works for me and it makes sense, even to the atheistic side, I would
think...
Many atheists are also inclined towards Buddhism, and this is the
reason. I love this quote; I quote it at all kinds of theists who
claim that all flavors of theism are equal/the same.
Personally, I find it completely illogical to make a definitive
statement about something that one will only surely know about after
one has died. Color me crazy, but isn't atheism just as illogical as
any of the religious beliefs, simply because it ignores the
POSSIBILITY of the existence of deity?
Well, it's also possible that the universe is ruled over by the
Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Turquoise Pigs of the Sonora.
You can't prove they don't exist, and you can't prove that some god
doesn't exist - you can't prove negatives. Just because you can't
prove negatives doesn't mean that you have to believe in the positive
assertions.
The problem is, there's no *evidence* for the IPU, Flying Turquoise
Pigs, or any god. Therefore, belief in them *is* illogical, while the
absence of belief in them is the most reasonable position, given that
aforementioned paucity of evidence.
Because, if you allow that
possibility, then you are not an atheist, but an AGNOSTIC!
See above.
Thanks for proving my point. By definition an atheist is one who
denies the possibility of deity. An agnostic allows the possibility.
Ah, but we *don't* deny the possibility that a god might exist. We
just have never encountered any evidence that demonstrates that one
does. In the absence of that evidence, we lack belief in any gods.
There's really no way I can make that any simpler. I realize that
you're outside of your comfort zone, but *do* make an effort to wrap
your head around this easy concept, please.
"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to
listen." ~Tommy Smothers
And I completely agree.
And so do I.
"When any government, or church for that matter, undertakes to say to
it's subjects, 'this you may not read, this you must not see, this you
are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no
matter how holy the motive."- 'If This Goes On' by Robert A. Heinlein
And that applies to atheism just as much as any other movement.
Excuse me, Sparky, but atheism is *not* a "movement." Atheism is the
condition of not having god beliefs. That's all it is.
Excuse me, but when a large, or even small mass of people are pushing
a political, ethical or moral concept, it is a movement, by
definition. It may not be organized (see the anti-war movement right
now, for a superb example), but it is still a movement.
Add to that that there are several registered 501 (c) 3 corporations
listed as Atheist Societies in the USA and your statement that it is
not a movement is refuted.
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
I concede that there are atheist organizations. And I lived through
the antiwar movement in the 70s, so I take your point.
However, I will concede that atheists, and atheist writers, have a
certain prominence in the media these days. That's because we
atheists are damn sick and tired of being treated as second-class
citizens; and told that we're not patriots; and being told what we do
and do not believe; and quite frankly, *we're not gonna take it
anymore.*
No argument there. Try being a mentalist, magician or hypnotist,
sometime.... lol...
More
and more I am seeing in the materials coming from atheist spokespeople
statements that border on, if not outright espouse, censorship of any
religious thought.
Funny, I read all the atheist materials out there, and I haven't seen
*any* of that. What I see is atheists standing up for themselves and
calling a spade a spade, which is to say, that religion is nothing but
superstition and that faith is nothing but gullibility, and that
religion and faith have no official place in the government of a
diverse, democratic nation.
However, nowhere do I see any calls for censorship of religion. I
think you're projecting.
Really? Removal of religious holidays from calendars, removal of
religious holidays from television shows?
????? All the television shows *I* watch are replete with references
to religious holidays. Whose removing religious holidays from
calendars? I just bought a 2008 calendar, and it has "Christmas"
listed on December 25th.
If a publisher, or a broadcaster, chooses to pander to a group they
see as having discretionary income, then that's their choice. I have
*yet* to see a petition go around atheist/rationalist/skeptical groups
requesting that religious holidays be removed from TV shows or from
calendars. And believe me, I'm signed up for a *lot* of those groups.
The public media has been pandering to the religious for *centuries*.
If they decide to pander to us for a change, what of it? They
probably perceive us as an untapped source of revenue.
Removal of even the mention
of religion in schools as part of historical education?
Not where I come from. You can't teach religious precepts, but you
certainly can include information that certain religions exist and
participated in this or that historical undertaking - like the Spanish
Inquisition, fer instance.
If that's not censorship, I would certainly love to see your
definition of what is...
For my part, as a free-thinking person, I am not buying THAT.
I reserve the right to make my own decisions about religion, deity or
its lack in the universe and refuse to have those decisions dictated
to me.
I'm down with that. Nobody is proposing to dictate decisions of
conscience or belief to you. Have a hit and mellow out, fer christ's
sake.
Sorry, but I'm allergic to the herb. DEADLY allergic on the medical
side. Which sucks, trust me.
I feel your pain. I have a friend who's allergic. But at any rate, I
meant that metaphorically, since I would *never* advocate the use of
illegal drugs....
<Whistling innocently>
I would strongly suggest that BOTH sides of this issue move in that
direction. It saves on bandwidth and costs for Tums for all of the
indigestion that discussions like this always seem to cause.
The problem is *theists*. They won't move towards any kind of
detente. For instance, they won't desist from proselytizing in this
newsgroup. They've just *got* to round up all the unbelievers and get
us into the fold, and they won't rest until they do. So go preach at
them, will ya?
I have been - for years. Deaf ears seem to be on both sides of the
issue, which is really too bad.
Good for you. Please keep it up. Oh, does that mean you're part of
the atheist movement...?
With respect for BOTH sides of the issue,
I respect the other side's right to hold their beliefs. I don't have
to respect them for believing those beliefs.
Neat trick! Possible, but very difficult to do.
Not at all. Just read the Constitution (I'm presuming that you're an
American). Americans are guaranteed freedom of conscience and freedom
to practice religious beliefs, or no beliefs. Nowhere does it state
that anyone has to be respected for holding silly belief - indeed,
freedom of speech guarantees the right to mock such beliefs, and to
point out their flaws.
I've walked this fine line for years. My parents were devout
christians. While maintaining my own atheism, I drove my mom to
church services, functions, charities, etc., summoned her minister
when she was ill, and generally supported her in her practice of
religion. However, every time she asked me to participate, I
declined, and if pressed, explained why. She never understood my
atheism, but then, she had nothing resembling an educaiton, either.
The good news is that we were close when she died.
I don't have to respect
the substance of the beliefs. I don't have to let them walk all over
me as an unbeliever. I don't have to let them get away with special
pleading for religion. They can believe whatever silly ***** they want
to, as long as they keep it out of my face and don't pass legislation
enshrining their beliefs.
Great. I'm down with that, too. And, as an entertainer, I already
work on most religious holidays anyway...
Cool! What branch of entertainment are you in? I was born (well,
practically) playing the violin. In my 40s I took up stand-up comedy,
although I gave it up when I moved from southern California back to
Tucson, Arizona. I'm too damned old and lazy to do it now, but I
*love* performing nonetheless, and I miss it.
That's not censorship, that's called "standing up for yourself."
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
(Hearding cats is easy. Just make sure that there's a window, some
sunlight and a big enough pillow IN that sunlight... then make sure
that the pillow will STAY in the sunlight...
Oh, dear. You must have a small herd. ;->
Multiple laps in a room work, too... especially if the people who own
those laps are allergic TO cats... cats have a tropism for people
with allergies to them... as all cat owners and allergy sufferers
know...! ;) )
Oh, that's *so* true! My best friend of 52 years is deathly allergic
to cats. Whenever she comes into my house, mine make a bee-line for
her. It's because cats like people with good manners, and cat
etiquette dictates that the cat be the first to initiate contact.
Therefore, when someone comes in a room and tries to attract the cat's
attention, the cat thinks, "Gracious, how *rude*! I certainly don't
want to interact with her!" Whereas, if you come into a room and
totally ignore the cat, as my friend does, the cat thinks, "My
goodness, what *lovely* manners that person has! I must get to know
him immediately!"
Thanks for the response. I enjoyed it!
Me too! :)
Brenda
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
13 Oct 2007 02:02:34 AM |
|
|
The problem is, there's no *evidence* for the IPU, Flying Turquoise
Pigs, or any god. Therefore, belief in them *is* illogical, while the
absence of belief in them is the most reasonable position, given that
aforementioned paucity of evidence.
Because, if you allow that
possibility, then you are not an atheist, but an AGNOSTIC!
See above.
Thanks for proving my point. By definition an atheist is one who
denies the possibility of deity. An agnostic allows the possibility.
Ah, but we *don't* deny the possibility that a god might exist. We
just have never encountered any evidence that demonstrates that one
does. In the absence of that evidence, we lack belief in any gods.
There's really no way I can make that any simpler. I realize that
you're outside of your comfort zone, but *do* make an effort to wrap
your head around this easy concept, please.
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
To say there is the possibility of God existing makes you Agnostic. This
is not to say that if the existance of God were somehow proven, Athiests
would not convert. But I would bet many Atheists would deny the proof
for a long while before accepting it. (Imagine what would happen with
Christians if someone conclusively found the body of Jesus. The results
would be similar.)
A sincerely held belief that there is no God requires as much faith as
one who sincerely believes there is a God. Agnostics are the only ones
who can claim simply "I don't know". (Making Agnosticism the only truly
logical and rational religion.)
Like most followers of any religion, most Athiests are less than pure.
They generally hold to a core belief, but there is doubt or fuzziness on
the fringes. I like to describe myself as 95% Athiest and 5% Agnostic. I
seriously doubt there is a God. But I am aware my belief in no God is
one of faith, not fact. I can no more prove God does not exist than any
one can prove God does exist. The fact that I could be wrong is the 5%
Agnostic in me.
One more point: You state you have never encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God exists. But have you encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God does NOT exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
15 Oct 2007 10:05:45 AM |
|
|
"Paul Knight" <knightp@execpc.com> wrote
snip
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
Actually, you're wrong.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
15 Oct 2007 03:54:44 PM |
|
|
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
Actually, you're wrong.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Athiest, n.
A. 1. One who denies of disbelieves the existance of a God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 10:38:49 AM |
|
|
"Paul Knight" <knightp@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:13h7ksmjm1onj2d@corp.supernews.com...
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
Actually, you're wrong.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Athiest, n.
Learn how to spell.
A. 1. One who denies of disbelieves the existance of a God.
Dictionaries don't define us - WE do.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
15 Oct 2007 06:18:40 PM |
|
|
On Oct 15, 1:54 pm, Paul Knight <knig...@execpc.com> wrote:
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
Actually, you're wrong.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Athiest, n.
A. 1. One who denies of disbelieves the existance of a God.
Heads up, Sparky: theists don't get to define atheists anymore.
We're taking back the meaning of our own name, and restoring to it the
original meaning of "lacking belief in any god."
So why don't you take your Oxford English Dictionary and cram it where
the sun don't shine?
Enjoy.
Brenda
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
15 Oct 2007 11:39:01 PM |
|
|
Paul Knight wrote:
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of
God.
Actually, you're wrong.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Athiest, n.
A. 1. One who denies of disbelieves the existance of a God.
And who the ***** cares what they think? It's just a convenient definition
for them.
Atheism is *not* dogmatic. There are as many opinions about atheism as there
are atheists.
Go back to my response and address it if you can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 12:18:13 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vtudnfcrE9Lz3YnanZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@giganews.com...
Paul Knight wrote:
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of
God.
Actually, you're wrong.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Athiest, n.
A. 1. One who denies of disbelieves the existance of a God.
And who the ***** cares what they think? It's just a convenient definition
for them.
Atheism is *not* dogmatic. There are as many opinions about atheism as
there are atheists.
Go back to my response and address it if you can.
In order to deny something, you have to believe that
it already exists. Atheists either lack belief in the
existence of a god or gods or outright don't believe
in the existence of a god or gods. There is nothing
to deny. That is why a theist definition of atheism
will never work. We know what we do or don't believe,
and we will go by our own definition, not a theist one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 11:24:37 AM |
|
|
In order to deny something, you have to believe that
it already exists.
So if you deny vampires exist, does that mean you have to believe that
they do exist? I detect a serious flaw in logic here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 01:16:08 PM |
|
|
On Oct 16, 9:24 am, Paul Knight <knig...@execpc.com> wrote:
In order to deny something, you have to believe that
it already exists.
So if you deny vampires exist, does that mean you have to believe that
they do exist? I detect a serious flaw in logic here.
There's a big difference between knowing *of* fictional characters -
vampires, Moby *****, Batma - and thinking that they are extant.
Atheists are aware of the fictional characters known as "gods." We
just lack belief in any of them, primarily because there's no evidence
that these things actually exist.
It's the mind of the theist that equates "lacking belief in the
reality of a fictional character" to "denying God," because it implies
that God exists in reality - not just as a fictional character - to be
denied. Do you not see the difference between these two mindsets?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 08:22:18 PM |
|
|
It's the mind of the theist that equates "lacking belief in the
reality of a fictional character" to "denying God," because it implies
that God exists in reality - not just as a fictional character - to be
denied. Do you not see the difference between these two mindsets?
Well said! Of course I am aware of the different mind sets. You
elaborated excellently on my point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 07:08:28 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vtudnfcrE9Lz3YnanZ2dnUVZ_ruqnZ2d@giganews.com...
Paul Knight wrote:
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of
God.
Actually, you're wrong.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Athiest, n.
A. 1. One who denies of disbelieves the existance of a God.
And who the ***** cares what they think? It's just a convenient
definition for them.
Atheism is *not* dogmatic. There are as many opinions about atheism
as there are atheists.
Go back to my response and address it if you can.
In order to deny something, you have to believe that
it already exists. Atheists either lack belief in the
existence of a god or gods or outright don't believe
in the existence of a god or gods. There is nothing
to deny. That is why a theist definition of atheism
will never work. We know what we do or don't believe,
and we will go by our own definition, not a theist one.
I don't believe in gods. You know what else I don't believe? I don't believe
he actually looked "atheist" up in the OED. First of all, OED is a
subscription only service (yeah...I'm going to pay $30/month for something
that has reasonably equivalent products for free). And then there's those
*glaring* typoes ("of" instead of "or" and "existance" instead of
"existence").
What a tool.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
16 Oct 2007 11:25:12 AM |
|
|
And who the ***** cares what they think? It's just a convenient definition
for them.
Atheism is *not* dogmatic. There are as many opinions about atheism as there
are atheists.
"`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it
means just what I choose it to mean'" - Alice Through the Looking Glass,
Lewis Carroll.
You're right. We can all define atheism however we want. I define it my
way, you define it your way. We are all correct.
BTW, while I admit I goofed on the spelling (very embarrassing), copies
of the OED are available either in hard copy or on CD. I currently own
the CD copy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
15 Oct 2007 07:15:05 PM |
|
|
Paul Knight wrote:
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
Actually, you're wrong.
Oxford English Dictionary:
Athiest, n.
A. 1. One who denies of disbelieves the existance of a God.
An atheist is some one that practices atheism.
Atheism = A=without + theism.
Draw your own conclusions.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
15 Oct 2007 04:19:07 PM |
|
|
On 15 okt, 17:05, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Paul Knight" <knig...@execpc.com> wrote
snip
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
Actually, you're wrong.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
According to my dictionairy - but it is a Dutch one I admit - An
atheist is someone who denies the existence of (a) god. That is to
say: If you ask an atheist if there is (a) god, he will answer no. I
know most of us here on alt.atheism will regard anyone an atheist who
does not believe there is a god. But the dictionary doesn't mentios
believing, it only mentions denying.
Peter van Velzen
October 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
19 Oct 2007 01:14:13 PM |
|
|
On Oct 13, 12:02 am, Paul Knight <knig...@execpc.com> wrote:
The problem is, there's no *evidence* for the IPU, Flying Turquoise
Pigs, or any god. Therefore, belief in them *is* illogical, while the
absence of belief in them is the most reasonable position, given that
aforementioned paucity of evidence.
Because, if you allow that
possibility, then you are not an atheist, but an AGNOSTIC!
See above.
Thanks for proving my point. By definition an atheist is one who
denies the possibility of deity. An agnostic allows the possibility.
Ah, but we *don't* deny the possibility that a god might exist. We
just have never encountered any evidence that demonstrates that one
does. In the absence of that evidence, we lack belief in any gods.
There's really no way I can make that any simpler. I realize that
you're outside of your comfort zone, but *do* make an effort to wrap
your head around this easy concept, please.
Actually, by definition, a true Atheist does deny the existance of God.
Actually, you're wrong. "Atheist" (and unless it comes at the start
of a sentence, it doesn't need a capital "A") or "a-theist" in it's
original form means "without/lacking theism," the same way that "a-
moral" means "without/lacking morals" and "a-politcal" means "without/
lacking political affiliations or motivations." Kindly drop the
dictionary definitions of atheism and atheist, as most of them are
written by theists, and theists have an ax to grind. *We* are
defining ourselves these days. Nobody else gets to say what we are.
To say there is the possibility of God existing makes you Agnostic.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief. The two
are not mutually exclusive. I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in
any gods, and I lack that belief because there's no evidence to
indicate that any god exists.
If there were evidence that seemed to indicate the existence of some
god, then I'd worry about "knowing" about that god, or it's
existence. Technically I suppose that I also qualify as an agnostic,
but I consider myself an atheist because of that "lack of belief"
thing, which is more basic than the "knowlege" thing.
This
is not to say that if the existance of God were somehow proven,
Er, which god would that be? At last count, humans had in excess of
18,000 gods in their history. Please be specific about which of these
gods you're talking about.
Athiests
would not convert.
Convert to what? If the existence of a god was proven to a lead-pipe
certainty, then I'd no longer be an atheist, in the sense that I'd
believe that this god (whichever one it turned out to be) actually
existed.
That is *not* to say that I would "convert to" it's worship, or abide
by what people tell me are its precepts. For one thing, I need to
know *why* a supernatural being would need to be worshipped by
inferior life forms (I tend to think that such a being would be
evil). Next, I'd need irrefutable proof that what people *tell* me
are this god's precepts *really* *are* handed down from that god. At
which point I'd examine the precepts and see if they worked well with
my own moral compass.
Only then would I even consider "converting" to a religion about this
as-yet-unspecified god.
If the god in question turned out to be the biblical god, or any god
*like* the biblical god, I would make the choice *not* to worship it,
as I consider the biblical god to be monstrous and unworthy of
worship. (Not to mention incapable of existance, but that's a whole
'nother discussion.)
But I would bet many Atheists would deny the proof for a long while before accepting it.
Well, we have a higher standard of what constitutes evidence that you
lot do. That's why we're atheists.
(Imagine what would happen with
Christians if someone conclusively found the body of Jesus. The results
would be similar.)
A sincerely held belief that there is no God requires as much faith as
one who sincerely believes there is a God.
STOP RIGHT THERE. You keep making that same nasty theist contention,
which is that "lacking belief" is the same thing as "believing that
[some god] doesn't exist." They are NOT THE SAME THING. I simply
lack a belief in any gods - I don't actively believe there is no god.
Do you not see the subtle (but important) difference there?
Agnostics are the only ones
who can claim simply "I don't know". (Making Agnosticism the only truly
logical and rational religion.)
As I said above, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
Like most followers of any religion, most Athiests are less than pure.
Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. Atheists have no creed and no formal
belief system. All we have in common is that we lack belief in
gods. "Religion" implies the practice of worship or propitiation of
the supernatural, as well as the existence of dogma or codified laws
and practices. Atheism has none of that. "Atheism" is to "religion"
as "bald" is to "hair color."
Trying to paint atheism as a religion is a typically nasty, lying,
dishonest theist trick - one practiced with special fervor by
christians - and it stops *here*.
They generally hold to a core belief,
Actually, we generally hold *no* belief. Lacking belief is not the
same as believing in a negative. Please get that through your thick,
lying theist head. The *only* thing atheists have in common is that
we all lack a belief in any god.
but there is doubt or fuzziness on
the fringes. I like to describe myself as 95% Athiest and 5% Agnostic.
If you're *any* *part* atheist - and the "e" goes before the "i", BTW
- then I'm a virgin pirate supermodel astronaut talk-show host with a
doctorate in biochemistry.
<Spit>
I
seriously doubt there is a God. But I am aware my belief in no God is
one of faith, not fact.
That describes a "strong atheist," and that puts the burden of proof
on *you* to prove that there's no god.
Big mistake.
I can no more prove God does not exist than any
one can prove God does exist. The fact that I could be wrong is the 5%
Agnostic in me.
You have yet to explain which god it is that you can't prove exists.
One more point: You state you have never encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God exists. But have you encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God does NOT exist?
If you had *ever* seen the inside of a logic classroom, you'd know
that nobody can prove a negative, Sparky. The burden of proof is
*always* on the positive claimant. If I claimed that the Flying
Turquoise Pigs of the Sonora were "real," then I'd bear the burdern of
having to prove they exist. Meanwhile, lacking such evidence, you
would merely lack belief in their existence. You would be an a-
piggist.
Do you see how this works?
In closing please stop claiming to be an atheist - you aren't one.
Your duplicity and fuzzy thinking give you away as a closet theist (my
guess is that you're in here pretending to be an atheist, what we call
"Lying for Jesus"). You aren't fooling anyone.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
23 Oct 2007 11:48:21 PM |
|
|
Kinndly drop the
dictionary definitions of atheism and atheist, as most of them are
written by theists, and theists have an ax to grind. *We* are
defining ourselves these days. Nobody else gets to say what we are.
So you define the term for yourself. Fair enough. This weekend I met an
Agnostic who defined Agnosticism as anyone who was not 100% certain of
his or her beliefs. Since the person was Agnostic, that person clearly
can define the term. By that definition, you, me, Mother Theresa and
about 95% of the world are Agnostic. Since he is an Agnostic, by your
arguement, his definition must stand and we are all Agnostics.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief. The two
are not mutually exclusive. I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in
any gods, and I lack that belief because there's no evidence to
indicate that any god exists.
As you note below, there is a significant difference between belief and
lack of belief. As an Atheist, I believe God does not exist. That is a
positive belief. You lack a belief in a divine being due to lack of
evidence. That is a negative belief. Big difference. I would argue that
the active belief that there is no god defines one as an Atheist. Simply
lacking belief implies some doubt about the existance or non-existance
of a divine being, that is to say "dunno". To me that is an Agnostic.
But if you wish to define yourself as an Atheist, go ahead. Since we all
make our own definitions, it really doesn't matter.
BTW, I am capitalizing the word "Atheist" because I consider it as a
proper noun, like Christian or Muslim.
This
is not to say that if the existance of God were somehow proven,
Er, which god would that be? At last count, humans had in excess of
18,000 gods in their history.
Any or all. Of course, as previously noted, proving God or gods exist is
virtually impossible, just as it is impossible to disprove their existance.
A sincerely held belief that there is no God requires as much faith as
one who sincerely believes there is a God.
STOP RIGHT THERE. You keep making that same nasty theist contention,
which is that "lacking belief" is the same thing as "believing that
[some god] doesn't exist." They are NOT THE SAME THING. I simply
lack a belief in any gods - I don't actively believe there is no god.
Do you not see the subtle (but important) difference there?
See above.
Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. Atheists have no creed and no formal
belief system. All we have in common is that we lack belief in
gods. "Religion" implies the practice of worship or propitiation of
the supernatural, as well as the existence of dogma or codified laws
and practices. Atheism has none of that. "Atheism" is to "religion"
as "bald" is to "hair color."
Big problems here. First, if Atheism is not a religion, then it is not
protected by the First Amendment. Wouldn't all the theists love to find
that out.
Second: You complain about the theist definition of Atheism. Then why
you are using the theist definition of religion? How about this
definiton: Religion is a set of beliefs and/or dogma about things that
cannot be proven or demonstrated. While many religions have codifed laws
and rituals, they are not necessary. As I understand the basic dogma of
Atheism, Atheists believe that since there is no God, one is guided by
one's own morals and ethics rather than the supposed dictates of any
divine being. Because one is guided by one's own rules and because there
is no god, rituals and the supernatural are irrelevant and superfluous.
If you're *any* *part* atheist
then I'm a virgin pirate supermodel astronaut talk-show host with a
doctorate in biochemistry.
Arr, matey, which one of your shows will include you explaining
biological and chemical factors involved joining the Zero-G club while
on the space station?
That describes a "strong atheist," and that puts the burden of proof
on *you* to prove that there's no god.
Big mistake.
No. It demonstrates that faith is required to be an Atheist just like
faith is required to be a theist. I have strong faith that there is no
God, even though I cannot prove that statement. The only group that does
not require faith are Agnostics because they simply say "I don't know".
And, yes, my position is equally irrational to theists.
You have yet to explain which god it is that you can't prove exists.
Irrelevant. The answer is All of the Above. I do not believe in any
divine beings from Zeus to Yahweh to faeries to the Flying Spaghetti
Monster. I believe that, at least until we discover more advanced life
on other planets, humans are the most advanced beings in our realm of
existance. (One could possibly make an arguement that dolphins are more
advanced, but that is not relevant to this discussion.) There is no all
knowing, all loving, all seeing, all powerful, all whatever being in the
universe.
One more point: You state you have never encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God exists. But have you encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God does NOT exist?
If you had *ever* seen the inside of a logic classroom, you'd know
that nobody can prove a negative, Sparky.
Valid point. I will rephrase the question: What, to you, would
constitute evidence that any divine being whom we would reasonably call
"God" existed?
I have met plenty of otherwise rational, sane theists who have claimed a
personal experience with "God" and heard stories of many others (such as
Mother Theresa, Joan d'Arc, and so on). They consider this personal
proof that God exists. Are they all crazy (temporarily insane) or lying?
Maybe. At the same time, many theists would argue you are blind for not
seeing the evidence that is right in front of you. You merely need to
open your eyes and see it (i.e. reinterpret the facts to fit their beliefs).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Are you sure you're going to heaven? |
24 Oct 2007 03:00:05 AM |
|
|
"Paul Knight" <knightp@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:13htjl05tu7hd5b@corp.supernews.com...
Kinndly drop the
dictionary definitions of atheism and atheist, as most of them are
written by theists, and theists have an ax to grind. *We* are
defining ourselves these days. Nobody else gets to say what we are.
So you define the term for yourself. Fair enough. This weekend I met an
Agnostic who defined Agnosticism as anyone who was not 100% certain of his
or her beliefs. Since the person was Agnostic, that person clearly can
define the term. By that definition, you, me, Mother Theresa and about 95%
of the world are Agnostic. Since he is an Agnostic, by your arguement, his
definition must stand and we are all Agnostics.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief. The two
are not mutually exclusive. I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in
any gods, and I lack that belief because there's no evidence to
indicate that any god exists.
As you note below, there is a significant difference between belief and
lack of belief. As an Atheist, I believe God does not exist. That is a
positive belief. You lack a belief in a divine being due to lack of
evidence. That is a negative belief. Big difference. I would argue that
the active belief that there is no god defines one as an Atheist. Simply
lacking belief implies some doubt about the existance or non-existance of
a divine being, that is to say "dunno". To me that is an Agnostic. But if
you wish to define yourself as an Atheist, go ahead. Since we all make our
own definitions, it really doesn't matter.
BTW, I am capitalizing the word "Atheist" because I consider it as a
proper noun, like Christian or Muslim.
This
is not to say that if the existance of God were somehow proven,
Er, which god would that be? At last count, humans had in excess of
18,000 gods in their history.
Any or all. Of course, as previously noted, proving God or gods exist is
virtually impossible, just as it is impossible to disprove their
existance.
A sincerely held belief that there is no God requires as much faith as
one who sincerely believes there is a God.
STOP RIGHT THERE. You keep making that same nasty theist contention,
which is that "lacking belief" is the same thing as "believing that
[some god] doesn't exist." They are NOT THE SAME THING. I simply
lack a belief in any gods - I don't actively believe there is no god.
Do you not see the subtle (but important) difference there?
See above.
Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. Atheists have no creed and no formal
belief system. All we have in common is that we lack belief in
gods. "Religion" implies the practice of worship or propitiation of
the supernatural, as well as the existence of dogma or codified laws
and practices. Atheism has none of that. "Atheism" is to "religion"
as "bald" is to "hair color."
Big problems here. First, if Atheism is not a religion, then it is not
protected by the First Amendment. Wouldn't all the theists love to find
that out.
Second: You complain about the theist definition of Atheism. Then why you
are using the theist definition of religion? How about this definiton:
Religion is a set of beliefs and/or dogma about things that cannot be
proven or demonstrated. While many religions have codifed laws and
rituals, they are not necessary. As I understand the basic dogma of
Atheism, Atheists believe that since there is no God, one is guided by
one's own morals and ethics rather than the supposed dictates of any
divine being. Because one is guided by one's own rules and because there
is no god, rituals and the supernatural are irrelevant and superfluous.
If you're *any* *part* atheist
then I'm a virgin pirate supermodel astronaut talk-show host with a
doctorate in biochemistry.
Arr, matey, which one of your shows will include you explaining biological
and chemical factors involved joining the Zero-G club while on the space
station?
That describes a "strong atheist," and that puts the burden of proof
on *you* to prove that there's no god.
Big mistake.
No. It demonstrates that faith is required to be an Atheist just like
faith is required to be a theist. I have strong faith that there is no
God, even though I cannot prove that statement. The only group that does
not require faith are Agnostics because they simply say "I don't know".
And, yes, my position is equally irrational to theists.
You have yet to explain which god it is that you can't prove exists.
Irrelevant. The answer is All of the Above. I do not believe in any divine
beings from Zeus to Yahweh to faeries to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I
believe that, at least until we discover more advanced life on other
planets, humans are the most advanced beings in our realm of existance.
(One could possibly make an arguement that dolphins are more advanced, but
that is not relevant to this discussion.) There is no all knowing, all
loving, all seeing, all powerful, all whatever being in the universe.
One more point: You state you have never encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God exists. But have you encountered any evidence that
demonstrates that God does NOT exist?
If you had *ever* seen the inside of a logic classroom, you'd know
that nobody can prove a negative, Sparky.
Valid point. I will rephrase the question: What, to you, would constitute
evidence that any divine being whom we would reasonably call "God"
existed?
If we could do that, we wouldn't be atheists,
would we? It's incredible how many people
ask this totally stupid question.
I have met plenty of otherwise rational, sane theists who have claimed a
personal experience with "God" and heard stories of many others (such as
Mother Theresa, Joan d'Arc, and so on). They consider this personal proof
that God exists. Are they all crazy (temporarily insane) or lying? Maybe.
At the same time, many theists would argue you are blind for not seeing
the evidence that is right in front of you. You merely need to open your
eyes and see it (i.e. reinterpret the facts to fit their beliefs).
And, give up your sanity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
