| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Daniel Joseph Min" |
| Date: |
27 May 2006 05:05:18 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism - Defined |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon.
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred.
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts"!
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism. Atheism is no different in that regard.
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
and not just from Atheists.
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle, the Cat's
out of the bag. It's a real Pandora's Box against Atheism.
Once that door gets opened, the floodgates to true freedom
of speech--and true freedom of religion--will be wide open... :-D
*VOTE* Republican!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRHjKD5ljD7YrHM/nEQL8BwCeIvBXKE7z7bHtcgqUOo2OFX0pj6QAoIx6
/sE7nPWlHpTpwTb/H58qZtNv
=bMNC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 01:00:07 AM |
|
|
"*****"
See? You could have said it all that shortly.
--
"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: "BLPD" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 01:45:15 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Joseph Min" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
That is just colloquialism for "An absence of theism, an absence of belief
in the existence of gods."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 12:50:42 PM |
|
|
In article <4JSdnQZ6Y6Nh2-TZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"BLPD" <blpd@nospam.net> wrote:
"Daniel Joseph Min" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
That is just colloquialism for "An absence of theism, an absence of belief
in the existence of gods."
Then explain why
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
say s
<quote>
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively
believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking
belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position;
whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong
atheism."
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and
weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief
in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief
that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming
that all atheists are "strong atheists." There is a qualitative
difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter
of degree.
<unquote>
?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BLPD" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 02:21:42 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9CC8F1.11504228052006@news.usenetmonster.com
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in the existence of gods
Atheists who are agnostic like me and Thomas Huxley go beyond mere absence
of belief in the existence of gods to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on
principle, religious belief (belief sans evidence) in the existence of gods:
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
That which agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is any contrary
doctrine like Islam or Christianity for example, that there are propositions
like the tenets of Islam or Christianity for example, which people ought to
believe, without logically satisfactory evidence. See Thomas Huxley, who
coined the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 04:06:29 PM |
|
|
In article <y-OdnRIh2sYTauTZRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"BLPD" <blpd@nospam.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9CC8F1.11504228052006@news.usenetmonster.com
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in the existence of gods
Atheists who are agnostic like me and Thomas Huxley
Then Septic must be in agreement with Huxley when he said
"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything."
Letter to Herbert Spencer, 22 March 1886, in Leonard Huxley's
Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (1900) vol. 2, ch. 8
Thus Septic cannot be denying the possibility of gods and agreeing with
Huxley at the same time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 07:21:30 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <y-OdnRIh2sYTauTZRVn-tg@comcast.com>,
"BLPD" <blpd@nospam.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-9CC8F1.11504228052006@news.usenetmonster.com
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in the existence of
gods
Atheists who are agnostic like me and Thomas Huxley
Then Septic must be in agreement with Huxley when he said
"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything."
Letter to Herbert Spencer, 22 March 1886, in Leonard Huxley's
Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (1900) vol. 2, ch. 8
Thus Septic cannot be denying the possibility of gods and agreeing with
Huxley at the same time.
You refuse to learn, to be educated, from reposting
the same nonsense over and over.
In short, you are a moron.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schult
z/o-hair.html
Finally, lest there be any doubt as to how Huxley
felt about his position between atheists and
Christians, and those with whom he felt
somewhat-unwillingly aligned, we have this final
quote from the Project Gutenberg encyclopedia
article:
In a letter to Charles Kingsley . . . [dated] the
5th of May 1863:--
"I have never had the least sympathy with the a
priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by
nature and disposition the greatest possible
antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school.
Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself,
exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far
as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and
infidel.
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 01:46:13 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Joseph Min" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com...
<***** snipped>
ok so what do you call those of us who really don't give a flying *****
whether god is real or not, but still think the buybull is a load of
horseshit?
*VOTE* Republican!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
***** you. i don't vote. believing politicians are going to fix /anything/ or
that voting is even worth the effort are just as stupid as those who believe
a magic peter pan will whisk them away to never never land as long as they
don't swear or eat pork.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mary Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 03:14:04 AM |
|
|
"Daniel Joseph Min" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
I prefer this explanation:
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the
existence of deities, and most commonly of God). This encompasses both
people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about
whether gods exist or not. (ref wikipedia).
Thus atheism is not a belief whereas theism is a belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff White" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
02 Jun 2006 11:49:20 AM |
|
|
"Mary Walker" <mary@walker.com> wrote in message
news:44795bda_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
"Daniel Joseph Min" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
I prefer this explanation:
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in
the existence of deities, and most commonly of God). This encompasses both
people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim
about whether gods exist or not. (ref wikipedia).
Thus atheism is not a belief whereas theism is a belief.
i think it would be better to say that atheism is the awareness and
acknowledgement of the illogicity of BUYBULLGAWD, whereas theism is wishful
thinking by a bunch of dee dee dees.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Heath" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
27 May 2006 10:30:29 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Joseph Min" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon.
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred.
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts"!
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism. Atheism is no different in that regard.
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
and not just from Atheists.
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle, the Cat's
out of the bag. It's a real Pandora's Box against Atheism.
Once that door gets opened, the floodgates to true freedom
of speech--and true freedom of religion--will be wide open... :-D
*VOTE* Republican!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2B1CCFE7
*Download Min's Banned (Freeware) Books:
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
*Min's Spiritual I.Q. Test (how smart are you, really):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=HCRHGLQM38786.0401967593@anonymous.poster
*Min's Google-Archived Home Page On The WWW:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=XJBDEJF138262.9022453704@anonymous.poster
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRHjKD5ljD7YrHM/nEQL8BwCeIvBXKE7z7bHtcgqUOo2OFX0pj6QAoIx6
/sE7nPWlHpTpwTb/H58qZtNv
=bMNC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Daniel Joseph Min, just another semi-psychotic twit, babbling *****
buffoonery!
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Buffoon.html
--
Later Larry
aa #2216
Plonked by Fred Stone, 17 March 2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
27 May 2006 10:39:06 PM |
|
|
Well, when an argument starts with a person who believes in magic, who
then says, "You not believing in magic, my magic in particular, is a
form of you believing in magic - the magic of their being no magic."
It hardly invites any response.
I mean, it's not like the 'other views' of people who believe in magic
will be worth caring about.
As far as what atheism is, that is simple. Ask any Christian. Ask any
Muslim.
All Christians and Muslims DO HAVE - disinterest in all gods, (but
their own)
Just add ONE MORE GOD TO YOUR OWN LIST - your god, and you now know
what an atheist is.
Is you disinterest in Islam, Odin, or Zeus, a 'form of' religion of
Islam, religion of Odin, religion of Zeus?
You have my permission to believe in all the magic you want. What are
religious people going to do? Get so mad they stop salting my fries?
I'm real worried.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Heath" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
10 Jun 2006 10:50:35 AM |
|
|
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1148787546.594197.177890@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, when an argument starts with a person who believes in magic, who
then says, "You not believing in magic, my magic in particular, is a
form of you believing in magic - the magic of their being no magic."
It hardly invites any response.
I mean, it's not like the 'other views' of people who believe in magic
will be worth caring about.
As far as what atheism is, that is simple. Ask any Christian. Ask any
Muslim.
All Christians and Muslims DO HAVE - disinterest in all gods, (but
their own)
Just add ONE MORE GOD TO YOUR OWN LIST - your god, and you now know
what an atheist is.
Is you disinterest in Islam, Odin, or Zeus, a 'form of' religion of
Islam, religion of Odin, religion of Zeus?
You have my permission to believe in all the magic you want. What are
religious people going to do? Get so mad they stop salting my fries?
I'm real worried.
Is this the quote that you are trying to expand upon and paraphrase?
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
--
Later Larry
aa #2216
Plonked by Fred Stone, 17 May 2006
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 11:47:27 AM |
|
|
Daniel Joseph Min schreef:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Hm, first mistake: Religion not equal to believe.
If I believe the earth rotate aorund its north to south axes,
that does not mean I am a worshipper of earth rotation.
However sincere I may be in my belief,
it doesn't make me devout,
and it is no sacriledge if I say "the suns comes up in the East"
The same in fact would be true,
if I happened to think the sun rotates around the earth.
That too, is not a religion.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon.
Can you help me to such a dictionary? I have none.
There are many scientific facts that have nothing in common with
Atheism.
What you are probably refering to is the fact, that most atheists,
will respect scientific facts and will not repect myths.
This however does not make Atheism synonym for scientific fact.
Again atheists are not religious.
We do no worhip
we do not have rites
we have nothing sacred in common
(while some atheist will treat human rights as sacred other atheists
don't)
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred.
I am an Athiest that does not believe in the big bang,
because it requires a force in nature that has not been obsevered
only deducted from the amount of red-shift.
No atheist thinks atheists created heaven and earth,
some though think theists created God.
My conclusion:
You are a very confused person.
The writings of Charles Darwin are no Gospel.
If science discovers facts that are not in accordance with something in
his theorie,
we abandon (that part of) his theory, and chance it for a better (part
of the) theory.
Surprisinglly Charles Darwin did not make any claim,.
that has been disproved yet, though his theory has been enhanced,
by the discovery of genes (and before that by the earlier works of
Mendel)
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts"!
Atheist have very lilttle conclusions, theories, beliefs views etc,
that are restricted to atheists only. And they have about zero
conclusions, theoriesv beliefs views etc. in common.
Because even the theory: "There is no God"
is not shared by all people calling themselves Atheists.
Some will simply say they lack believe in god,
but will not claim that (a) god does not exists.
But even if we go by Websters faulty definition,
than the one atheist conclusion would be "there is no God".
That is very little compared to the theories of Christians, jews,
Muslims etc.
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism. Atheism is no different in that regard.
I have never ever heard an atheist claim his is the only true religion.
I heard many an atheist claim, he has none.
Atheists have more than 33 differences that is for sure,
and yes many of them claim the people with a different view are wrong
but no atheist will tell you you're going to hell for disagreeing with
him.
In fact almost any atheist will agree,
it is possible for people with ideas that are totally wrong,
to live a long and happy life.
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
and not just from Atheists
Thank you for reminding us how stupid it is to use the word morons,
but atheism is actually not based on facts,
(apart from the fact that almost any religion,
can be proven to be wrong in some aspect)
It is mainly based of the surprising lack of evidence,
for a - supposedly great - God.
I do not think lack of evidence can be called a fact.
I do think it can be used for aquital of the accused.
(God didn't do it)
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle, the Cat's
out of the bag. It's a real Pandora's Box against Atheism.
Monopoly?
Where in public schools are children being taught "there is no God?"
where in goverment institutions does it say "there is no God?"
Evolution is a proven fact.
One does not have to be an atheist to see that.
Many religious leaders adher to the theory
the process evolution was created by God,
but don't deny it's been happening.
The only reason that almost all atheist accept it,
is that without a God, there is - to my knowledge - no alternative
With a God there are of course alternatives,
like humans being made out of red clay.
Though none of them are very likely.
Once that door gets opened, the floodgates to true freedom
of speech--and true freedom of religion--will be wide open... :-D
You have freedom of religion,
you just do not have the right to spread you religion thru public
schools.
just as atheists do not have the right to say "there is no god"
as part of the eductation in a public school.
The doors are wide open,
we just don't want them closed.
*VOTE* Republican!
Daniel Joseph Min
Luckily for the republicans
they are not dependent on the supports of the likes of Daniel Joshep
Min
for else they were doomed:)
I do not believe that people who believe lack of believe is a believe,
exist in numbers great enough to win the elections.
And if I am wrong, the whole world is probably doomed too.
Tell me Daniel what is you hairstyle ?
Baldness?
Peter van Velzen
May 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
29 May 2006 01:04:58 PM |
|
|
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
So if you conclude that atheism is a religion based upon your poorly
worded dictionary, then you will also conclude that my belief that
steak tastes good is also a religious belief?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
27 May 2006 10:41:51 PM |
|
|
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
Not this again! Min, you're still Don Quixote-but without the endearing
charm. Isn't it time for your meds yet?
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 10:15:15 AM |
|
|
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
<snip>
Atheism is free and science pays. Religion costs money.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 12:02:58 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com>,
the lovely and talented Daniel Joseph Min
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know,
You don't know it, because it is not a fact.
but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief",
You are a liar.
--
Lars Eighner http://larseighner.com/ http:/myspace.com/larseighner
War hath no fury like a noncombatant.
- Charles Edward Montague
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
27 May 2006 07:38:34 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
27 May 2006 10:43:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:38:34 -0400, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
Apparently he's a moron. Did you see that passel of crock he posted
about us changing the definition of atheist for his personal pleasure?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 01:20:57 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 11:02:02 AM |
|
|
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
And by rejecting someone for being made to supposedly look riduculous
by the ever present Rove propaganda machine, you too are part of the
republican facism party.
congratulations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
29 May 2006 10:40:20 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
And by rejecting someone for being made to supposedly look riduculous
by the ever present Rove propaganda machine,
Oops, here's where you failed. Care to try again?
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
30 May 2006 08:31:02 AM |
|
|
On 29 May 2006 08:40:20 -0700, wrote:
Kate wrote:
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
And by rejecting someone for being made to supposedly look riduculous
by the ever present Rove propaganda machine,
Oops, here's where you failed. Care to try again?
LOL, you are naive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 01:38:14 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
Actually it's the right-wing media propaganda machine that does that.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
29 May 2006 10:39:25 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
Actually it's the right-wing media propaganda machine that does that.
This puts in mind a saying about heat and kitchens.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
29 May 2006 12:41:31 PM |
|
|
On 29 May 2006 08:39:25 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
Actually it's the right-wing media propaganda machine that does that.
This puts in mind a saying about heat and kitchens.
How about a truce? If the right doesn't lie about Democrats, we won't
tell the truth about Republicans.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Donovan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
10 Jun 2006 02:48:46 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:bgcm721o2doo0bgj29gr4qvg7m5dqlu005@4ax.com...
On 29 May 2006 08:39:25 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently
ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
Actually it's the right-wing media propaganda machine that does that.
This puts in mind a saying about heat and kitchens.
How about a truce? If the right doesn't lie about Democrats, we won't
tell the truth about Republicans.
--
I really envy those lucky nations, who have a true multi-party democracy,
not this Demopublican / RepublicRat nonsense.
Mark
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
30 May 2006 10:42:09 AM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 29 May 2006 08:39:25 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 23:20:57 -0700, wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
*VOTE* Republican!
Why on Earth would anyone want to do something so patently ridiculous?
All it takes is for the Democratic candidate to present himself
as sufficiently ridiculous, and the rest follows.
Actually it's the right-wing media propaganda machine that does that.
This puts in mind a saying about heat and kitchens.
How about a truce? If the right doesn't lie about Democrats, we won't
tell the truth about Republicans.
Tell all the "Truth" you like. Worked so well the last two prez
elections, when you worked like hell to paint the republican
candidate as an alcoholic, draft-dodging, cocaine-sniffing
silver-spoon failure at everything he'd ever tried, and *still*
couldn't staple together a candidate that could beat him.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Erickson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
05 Jun 2006 06:28:49 PM |
|
|
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
"Atheism -
the *belief* that there is no God, or denial that
God or gods exist." [end quote, emphasis added]
Thus Atheism is properly a (ir)religious belief, and so
adherents and proponents of Atheism are equally as much
believers in their godless religion of Atheism as other
believers in other contrastingly less-godless religions
are likewise believers their respective religions; some
devout believers, some less devout in their convictions.
Of course other more Atheist-biased dictionaries define
Atheism as "scientific fact", "intellectual superiority"
and the like. But we non-Atheists know that Atheists are
every bit as religious in their beliefs as anybody else
in the world is religious in his or her (non-Atheistic)
beliefs. By the strict definition, Atheism *is* a belief.
But don't expect Atheists to admit to this any time soon.
For example, Atheists devoutly believe "In the beginning,
Atheists created the heaven and the earth--in a big bang".
Atheists devoutly believe their sacred gospel 'According
to Charles Darwin', etc. They hold these beliefs sacred.
It's like the ancient maxim that says "any finite set of
facts can evoke an infinite set of conclusions". But the
Atheists will never admit that their particular brand of
conclusions, theories, beliefs, views, etc., are nothing
more than that. How many Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.,
have you heard declare that theirs is vastly superior to
"mere belief" or "blind faith", but is "based on facts"!
You know, their particular brand of "Christianity" is the
"only true religion". And we hear similar claims from the
various sects of Islam, and from the at least 33 separate
schisms of Judaism. Atheism is no different in that regard.
Like all other religions, devout Atheism is also "not based
on superstitious clap-trap", "the mentally-insane delusions
of brain-dead religious morons", etc. Atheism is "far better
than unsupported blind faith alone", but is strictly "based
on facts in evidence" ad nauseam. We hear that all the time,
and not just from Atheists.
The Atheists don't like the idea of losing their monopoly
over America's public schools and government institutions.
Once the theory of 'Intelligent Design' gets superimposed
right over the top of the orthodox theory of 'Evolution',
the proverbial Genie will be out of the bottle, the Cat's
out of the bag. It's a real Pandora's Box against Atheism.
Once that door gets opened, the floodgates to true freedom
of speech--and true freedom of religion--will be wide open... :-D
If you think that what you found in Webster's proves that we all
believe that there is no God, how come you don't also accept the other
definitions you say you have found indicating that atheism is
"scientific fact"?
A dictionary can be wrong, which is a fact you seem to _almost
understand...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
31 May 2006 04:10:56 AM |
|
|
On 27 May 2006 22:05:18 -0000, Daniel Joseph Min
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Not that we need a dictionary to confirm what we already
know, but Atheism is properly defined as a "belief", e.g.,
quoting from Webster's New World Dictionary & Thesaurus:
You better hurry back to the lounge; Wheel of Fortune is about to
begin.
snip of distressing babble
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
27 May 2006 06:43:10 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Daniel Joseph Min in episode
<F6REAGIA38864.7536805556@twistycreek.com>...
*VOTE* Republican!
Republicans don't even want to vote Republican lately.
Daniel Joseph Min
Somebody forget to lock down the ward?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism - Defined |
28 May 2006 06:51:08 AM |
|
|
actually, it's looking at the bible and going this bible stuff is a complete
crock of horseshit, who was the fucking loon that came up with this bible
garbage, must have been another pat robertscum clone from way back when .
hey christian fruitcakes, obey your bible christian nuts, you must MURDER
everyone who works on the sabbath (as your "loving, caring" christian god
commands)
Exodus 31:15
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest,
holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to
death.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
