| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dgillesp" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2005 02:58:55 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism = Nothing? |
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a
particular world view. It is not a system of beliefs. It is not a
black hole for sucking in theistic belief in order to annihilate it.
And lord knows, it's absolutely and positively not some kind of
'religion'.
So understood atheism, it seems to me, is no more than a void, a vacuum,
an absence and lack, i.e., Nothing whatsoever in itself and can only be
said to "exist" in relation to something else: theistic beliefs.
This notion of atheism is amazing similar to Via Negativa theology which
holds that God can only be described by what he is not. God is not
Nature. He is not Fate or Destiny. He is not Some Great Big cosmic
"Thing." He is not some Parental Hangover, or Grand Old Man, nor yet
Absolute Perfection, or some Heavenly Bosom(-buddy), not a God-in-a-box
(Church), Managing Director (of the universe), or Perennial Grievance
(J.B. Phillips).
However, Via Negativa theology is held in counter-balance with the
positive or "cataphatic" way of knowing God. Christianity holds that
God has revealed himself insofar as the limitations of human mentality
and experience allow, in the person, work, life, death, resurrection and
ascension of Jesus Christ. The paradox and tension existing between the
positive and negative understanding of God cannot be resolved by
humanity in its present fallen state.
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative. If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
Denny
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 09:35:59 AM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net...
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative.
Do you believe in leprechauns? No? Then you are an aleprechaunist. Does
aleprechaunism offer you anything positive? No. Neither does it offer you
anything negative.
It offers nothing. Nor does it take anything away. It, like atheism, is
merely a description.
However, I believe that there is certainly a positive *effect* of atheism -
it offers one the freedom from belief in deity, and therefore freedom from
all the trappings such belief entails. In a similar way, aleprechaunism
offers a freedom from belief in leprechauns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 01:14:54 PM |
|
|
Do you believe in leprechauns? No? Then you are an aleprechaunist. Does
aleprechaunism offer you anything positive? No. Neither does it offer you
anything negative.
It offers nothing. Nor does it take anything away. It, like atheism, is
merely a description.
However, I believe that there is certainly a positive *effect* of
atheism -
it offers one the freedom from belief in deity, and therefore freedom from
all the trappings such belief entails. In a similar way, aleprechaunism
offers a freedom from belief in leprechauns.
Time for a new newsgroup?
Niels
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wmech" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 03:39:28 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net...
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a
particular world view. It is not a system of beliefs. It is not a
black hole for sucking in theistic belief in order to annihilate it.
And lord knows, it's absolutely and positively not some kind of
'religion'.
New are obviouslly not too bright.
Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods. It is nothing more and nothing less.
Quit trying to twist the meaning of atheism to suite your religious beliefs.
So understood atheism, it seems to me, is no more than a void, a vacuum,
an absence and lack, i.e., Nothing whatsoever in itself and can only be
said to "exist" in relation to something else: theistic beliefs.
This notion of atheism is amazing similar to Via Negativa theology which
holds that God can only be described by what he is not. God is not
Nature. He is not Fate or Destiny. He is not Some Great Big cosmic
"Thing." He is not some Parental Hangover, or Grand Old Man, nor yet
Absolute Perfection, or some Heavenly Bosom(-buddy), not a God-in-a-box
(Church), Managing Director (of the universe), or Perennial Grievance
(J.B. Phillips).
However, Via Negativa theology is held in counter-balance with the
positive or "cataphatic" way of knowing God. Christianity holds that
God has revealed himself insofar as the limitations of human mentality
and experience allow, in the person, work, life, death, resurrection and
ascension of Jesus Christ. The paradox and tension existing between the
positive and negative understanding of God cannot be resolved by
humanity in its present fallen state.
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative. If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
Denny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 07:47:23 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net...
[...]
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative. If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
I don't know why anyone should be interested in pleasing you by coming up
with a definition of atheism you consider positive. What's more, I don't
think you understand nothing. If you want to understand, look into Tao or
Zen, or both.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 03:20:29 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net...
<snip>
Strawman.
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative. If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
Atheism offers freedom from delusional beliefs such as
Hinduism, Islam, Scientology, Christianity, etc.
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 04:57:15 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net...
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a
particular world view. It is not a system of beliefs. It is not a
black hole for sucking in theistic belief in order to annihilate it.
And lord knows, it's absolutely and positively not some kind of
'religion'.
<snip>
After your first paragraph, you lost me. Atheism doesn't *have to offer
anything. It is nothing but a personal understanding of the universe in that
there is/are no god(s).
At some point in "believers" lives, someone had to tell them how the god
thing works. The "believer" had to pick which version he/she would accept as
truth.
For me, it was simply knowing, in my gut so-to-speak, that this stuff
being proffered just didn't pass my epiphany test. Something just didn't
smell right. ( And that was true for every flavor I sampled.)
In my search for "The Truth" the only thing that rang my bell were
really true things, (Like the stuff we learn through the scientific
process). I quote someone, but I forget who, when I write, "*Belief is
insubstantial. We can only *know things to varying degrees of certainty."
All the gods made up and worshipped by humans, present and past, are
certainly not around and floating somewhere over our heads, they are *in our
heads.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 11:15:54 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net...
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a
particular world view. It is not a system of beliefs. It is not a
black hole for sucking in theistic belief in order to annihilate it.
And lord knows, it's absolutely and positively not some kind of
'religion'.
Granted. You are correct. The same is true for lack of belief in the tooth
fairy.
So understood atheism, it seems to me, is no more than a void, a vacuum,
an absence and lack, i.e., Nothing whatsoever in itself and can only be
said to "exist" in relation to something else: theistic beliefs.
True. In the absence of theism, atheism would be a meaningless term.
This notion of atheism is amazing similar to Via Negativa theology which
holds that God can only be described by what he is not.
No, it's nothing like that. It's EXACTLY like not believeing in the tooth
fairy.
EXACTLY!
I can't stress this enough. If it makes no sense when you substitute the
word tooth fairy for god, then you're on the wrong track.
(Snip stuff that does not make sense if you substitute tooth fairy for god.)
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative.
True.
If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
Well, it offers the absence of theism, and all the benefits such an absence
brings.
It's like the absence of a disease, you're healthier.
Actually, THAT'S a good analogy. Theism is a disease, and atheism is the
absence of that disease.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 12:43:51 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> astounded us with:
news:HpydndreJ-lmyunfRVn-1g@io.com:
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net...
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a
particular world view. It is not a system of beliefs. It is not a
black hole for sucking in theistic belief in order to annihilate it.
And lord knows, it's absolutely and positively not some kind of
'religion'.
Granted. You are correct. The same is true for lack of belief in the
tooth fairy.
So understood atheism, it seems to me, is no more than a void, a
vacuum, an absence and lack, i.e., Nothing whatsoever in itself and can
only be said to "exist" in relation to something else: theistic
beliefs.
True. In the absence of theism, atheism would be a meaningless term.
This notion of atheism is amazing similar to Via Negativa theology
which holds that God can only be described by what he is not.
No, it's nothing like that. It's EXACTLY like not believeing in the
tooth fairy.
EXACTLY!
I can't stress this enough. If it makes no sense when you substitute the
word tooth fairy for god, then you're on the wrong track.
(Snip stuff that does not make sense if you substitute tooth fairy for
god.)
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative.
True.
If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
Well, it offers the absence of theism, and all the benefits such an
absence brings.
It's like the absence of a disease, you're healthier.
Actually, THAT'S a good analogy. Theism is a disease, and atheism is the
absence of that disease.
Theism is "insanity". Theists believe that a non-tangible, non-corporeal
life form, which created the universe, speaks to them via their hearts,
and, if they follow a line of dogma all their days, they will be rewarded
with eternal life in another plane of existence. Yeah, "I'd" buy it, LOL!
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 04:08:23 PM |
|
|
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a
particular world view. It is not a system of beliefs. It is not a
black hole for sucking in theistic belief in order to annihilate it.
And lord knows, it's absolutely and positively not some kind of
'religion'.
So understood atheism, it seems to me, is no more than a void, a vacuum,
an absence and lack, i.e., Nothing whatsoever in itself and can only be
said to "exist" in relation to something else: theistic beliefs.
This notion of atheism is amazing similar to Via Negativa theology which
holds that God can only be described by what he is not. God is not
Nature. He is not Fate or Destiny. He is not Some Great Big cosmic
"Thing." He is not some Parental Hangover, or Grand Old Man, nor yet
Absolute Perfection, or some Heavenly Bosom(-buddy), not a God-in-a-box
(Church), Managing Director (of the universe), or Perennial Grievance
(J.B. Phillips).
However, Via Negativa theology is held in counter-balance with the
positive or "cataphatic" way of knowing God. Christianity holds that
God has revealed himself insofar as the limitations of human mentality
and experience allow, in the person, work, life, death, resurrection and
ascension of Jesus Christ. The paradox and tension existing between the
positive and negative understanding of God cannot be resolved by
humanity in its present fallen state.
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative. If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
I don't like word "atheism" itself. It's used as if there are gods,
but we don't know about them or we choose to deny their existence.
The term was probably coined by believers to define people who were
not like them, not by "atheists" themselves. However the word's
become handy to describe those of us who absolutely realize that there
are no gods, so I use it too.
Atheism is actually a clear view of reality. It's an aspect
unobstructed by belief based on faith in dubious dogma and folklore.
Atheism is neither positive nor negative - it's simply seeing the truth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 07:09:57 PM |
|
|
I belief atheists choose not to belief. It's a disagreement to agree. It is
the principia discordia.
I - There is no Goddess but Goddess and She is Your Goddess. There is no
Erisian Movement but The Erisian Movement and it is The Erisian Movement.
And every Golden Apple Corps is the beloved home of a Golden Worm.
II - A Discordian Shall Always use the Official Discordian Document
Numbering System.
III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone
& Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to
Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic
Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic
Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of
Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).
IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the Solace
of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.
V - A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
IT IS SO WRITTEN! SO BE IT. HAIL DISCORDIA! PROSECUTORS WILL BE
TRANSGRESSICUTED.
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
06 May 2005 02:29:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 May 2005 02:09:57 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<niels@prijsindex.net> wrote:
I belief atheists choose not to belief.
You're free to believe anything you like. Whether that belief has any
connection to reality (it doesn't) is something else.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
06 May 2005 09:05:06 PM |
|
|
I belief atheists choose not to belief.
You're free to believe anything you like. Whether that belief has any
connection to reality (it doesn't) is something else.
??
Atheists see the myths about gods and choose not to buy them since 1. there
is no evidence and 2. these are plausible explanations how gods were
inventions from humans (same applies to dragons, unicorns, hell, heaven,
soul, absolute right, absolute wrong, moral obligations, mermaids, talking
animals, santa claus, easter bunny, global flood, ressurecting deads, crying
statues, prophets, ghosts, draculas, witches, flying saucers,
creation-magic, etc).
Still not happy?
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
07 May 2005 01:13:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 7 May 2005 04:05:06 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<niels@prijsindex.net> wrote:
I belief atheists choose not to belief.
You're free to believe anything you like. Whether that belief has any
connection to reality (it doesn't) is something else.
??
Atheists see the myths about gods and choose not to buy them since 1. there
is no evidence and 2. these are plausible explanations how gods were
inventions from humans (same applies to dragons, unicorns, hell, heaven,
soul, absolute right, absolute wrong, moral obligations, mermaids, talking
animals, santa claus, easter bunny, global flood, ressurecting deads, crying
statues, prophets, ghosts, draculas, witches, flying saucers,
creation-magic, etc).
Still not happy?
I can no more believe in deities than I can physically take flight by
flapping my arms. Such is not a choice. What you indicate are
rational reasons for not taking them seriously. However, in the main,
belief is based on emotion, of which the foremost is fear.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
07 May 2005 07:01:01 PM |
|
|
I belief atheists choose not to belief.
You're free to believe anything you like. Whether that belief has any
connection to reality (it doesn't) is something else.
??
Atheists see the myths about gods and choose not to buy them since 1.
there
is no evidence and 2. these are plausible explanations how gods were
inventions from humans (same applies to dragons, unicorns, hell, heaven,
soul, absolute right, absolute wrong, moral obligations, mermaids, talking
animals, santa claus, easter bunny, global flood, ressurecting deads,
crying
statues, prophets, ghosts, draculas, witches, flying saucers,
creation-magic, etc).
Still not happy?
I can no more believe in deities than I can physically take flight by
flapping my arms. Such is not a choice. What you indicate are
rational reasons for not taking them seriously. However, in the main,
belief is based on emotion, of which the foremost is fear.
The definition wasn't about theism, but about atheism. Anyhow, whatever the
actual proces is (rational, irrational, subconscious, conscious), the
atheist stays away (or steps away) from supernatural belief. The word chose
is about a decision-making. The atheist somehow comes to such a decision and
the word chose is appropriate.
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
08 May 2005 06:03:03 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 8 May 2005 02:01:01 +0200, "Niels van der Linden" <niels@prijsindex.net>
wrote:
I belief atheists choose not to belief.
You're free to believe anything you like. Whether that belief has any
connection to reality (it doesn't) is something else.
??
Atheists see the myths about gods and choose not to buy them since 1.
there
is no evidence and 2. these are plausible explanations how gods were
inventions from humans (same applies to dragons, unicorns, hell, heaven,
soul, absolute right, absolute wrong, moral obligations, mermaids, talking
animals, santa claus, easter bunny, global flood, ressurecting deads,
crying
statues, prophets, ghosts, draculas, witches, flying saucers,
creation-magic, etc).
Still not happy?
I can no more believe in deities than I can physically take flight by
flapping my arms. Such is not a choice. What you indicate are
rational reasons for not taking them seriously. However, in the main,
belief is based on emotion, of which the foremost is fear.
The definition wasn't about theism, but about atheism. Anyhow, whatever the
actual proces is (rational, irrational, subconscious, conscious), the
atheist stays away (or steps away) from supernatural belief.
The word chose
is about a decision-making.
Agreed, but there is no *choice* in the atheist's lack of belief.
The atheist somehow comes to such a decision and
the word chose is appropriate.
Only if choice also applies to vomiting, and the galloping squirts, when you
swallow something that disagrees with you.
When theists start telling us about how we have made a positive choice, or
whatever the author is calling it this week, to refuse belief, I am put in mind
of this exchange , from, Alice through the Looking Glass.
................................
`You needn't say "exactually,"' the Queen remarked: `I can
believe it without that. Now I'll give YOU something to believe.
I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'
`I can't believe THAT!' said Alice.
`Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again:
draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'
Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said: `one CAN'T
believe impossible things.'
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen.
`When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
08 May 2005 10:16:29 AM |
|
|
Ah. I get what you're trying to say: the proces to theism is (for the
overmajorly part) not a choice, but only works through dogmatic parenting or
infective agents.
"5. The patient may notice that the particular convictions that he holds,
while having nothing to do with evidence, do seem to owe a great deal to
epidemiology. Why, he may wonder, do I hold this set of convictions rather
than that set? Is it because I surveyed all the world's faiths and chose the
one whose claims seemed most convincing? Almost certainly not. If you have a
faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith
as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring
music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most
important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The
convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely
different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had
happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence.
6. If the patient is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different
religion from his parents, the explanation may still be epidemiological. To
be sure, it is possible that he dispassionately surveyed the world's faiths
and chose the most convincing one. But it is statistically more probable
that he has been exposed to a particularly potent infective agent --- a John
Wesley, a Jim Jones or a St. Paul. Here we are talking about horizontal
transmission, as in measles. Before, the epidemiology was that of vertical
transmission, as in Huntington's Chorea."
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
The proces to atheism from theism IS a choice I think (based on logic etc).
The proces from birth to atheism is a lack of mental abuse. However
superstition is extremely humanlike, so that too has choices/logic involved,
I think.
Niels
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
08 May 2005 11:35:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:03:03 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2005 02:01:01 +0200, "Niels van der Linden" <niels@prijsindex.net>
wrote:
I belief atheists choose not to belief.
You're free to believe anything you like. Whether that belief has any
connection to reality (it doesn't) is something else.
??
Atheists see the myths about gods and choose not to buy them since 1.
there
is no evidence and 2. these are plausible explanations how gods were
inventions from humans (same applies to dragons, unicorns, hell, heaven,
soul, absolute right, absolute wrong, moral obligations, mermaids, talking
animals, santa claus, easter bunny, global flood, ressurecting deads,
crying
statues, prophets, ghosts, draculas, witches, flying saucers,
creation-magic, etc).
Still not happy?
I can no more believe in deities than I can physically take flight by
flapping my arms. Such is not a choice. What you indicate are
rational reasons for not taking them seriously. However, in the main,
belief is based on emotion, of which the foremost is fear.
The definition wasn't about theism, but about atheism. Anyhow, whatever the
actual proces is (rational, irrational, subconscious, conscious), the
atheist stays away (or steps away) from supernatural belief.
The word chose
is about a decision-making.
Agreed, but there is no *choice* in the atheist's lack of belief.
The atheist somehow comes to such a decision and
the word chose is appropriate.
Only if choice also applies to vomiting, and the galloping squirts, when you
swallow something that disagrees with you.
When theists start telling us about how we have made a positive choice, or
whatever the author is calling it this week, to refuse belief, I am put in mind
of this exchange , from, Alice through the Looking Glass.
................................
`You needn't say "exactually,"' the Queen remarked: `I can
believe it without that. Now I'll give YOU something to believe.
I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day.'
`I can't believe THAT!' said Alice.
`Can't you?' the Queen said in a pitying tone. `Try again:
draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.'
Alice laughed. `There's no use trying,' she said: `one CAN'T
believe impossible things.'
`I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen.
`When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things
before breakfast.
A very interesting thing for the Reverend Charles Dodgson to
write.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 08:15:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 May 2005 02:09:57 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<niels@prijsindex.net> wrote:
I belief atheists choose not to belief. It's a disagreement to agree. It is
the principia discordia.
Then you're an idiot because there is zero reason to believe. In the
absence of any reason to believe, one doesn't. That's all.
Could YOU honestly "choose" to believe in a magic aardvark on the dark
side of the moon?
Be honest when you answer this question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 01:10:04 PM |
|
|
I belief atheists choose not to belief. It's a disagreement to agree. It
is
the principia discordia.
Then you're an idiot because there is zero reason to believe. [..blurp..]
You are the idiot here, since you didn't understand a word I said, including
my reference to the principia discordia (
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/ ), which should easily make you
understand that I never implied there was a reason to believe. Do I have to
spell the word DISCORDIA out to you?
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 02:44:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 1 May 2005 20:10:04 +0200, "Niels van der Linden"
<niels@prijsindex.net> wrote:
I belief atheists choose not to belief. It's a disagreement to agree. It
is
the principia discordia.
Then you're an idiot because there is zero reason to believe. [..blurp..]
Here's what the dishonest moron snipped:
:Then you're an idiot because there is zero reason to believe. In the
:absence of any reason to believe, one doesn't. That's all.
Address this, this time.
:Could YOU honestly "choose" to believe in a magic aardvark on the dark
:side of the moon?
And this.
You were obviously unable to be honest.
You are the idiot here, since you didn't understand a word I said, including
my reference to the principia discordia (
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/ ), which should easily make you
understand that I never implied there was a reason to believe. Do I have to
spell the word DISCORDIA out to you?
Look up "choose", moron. Then understand that there is nothing to
choose.
Niels
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 09:53:53 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative.
Baloney.
If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
Atheism offers freedom from superstition, and irrational ideas and
beliefs.
Atheists do not waste time, energy, money and other resources
trying to appease deities.
Atheists have the opportunity to be truly moral. We don't confuse
morality with the collection of brownie points.
Atheism does not require armies of apologists.
Atheists are allowed to receive the credit for their successes.
Atheists fix their own problems.
All this, and no change is required for the definition of atheism.
Another of your straw men goes up in flames.
Too bad, Denny.
Regards,
Josef
No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the
world as this good news of Atheism.
-- Annie Wood Besant
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 05:17:22 PM |
|
|
In article <4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net>,
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
So understood atheism, it seems to me, is no more than a void, a vacuum,
an absence and lack, i.e., Nothing whatsoever in itself and can only be
said to "exist" in relation to something else: theistic beliefs.
This is true. Atheism is only definable in relation to theism.
In a world where nobody had ever conceived of a god or gods, there
would be no word for atheist in any language, but everybody there
would be what we call an atheist.
As I understand your definition of atheism it has nothing positive to
offer, since it's bottom line is wholly negative. If it does have
something positive to offer, then a different definition of atheism is
called for IMO.
Atheism has nothing positive to offer. It is merely the absence of
something harmful.
--
David Canzi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 05:46:57 PM |
|
|
In article <4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net>,
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> posted:
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is . . .
The moment you say "Atheism is" it *is*.
Atheism is very much a religion based on doctrinal
belief. Atheism is a belief system. It requires the
faith in the doctrine that God does not exist.
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God . . .
Source - WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "David H." |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 05:57:10 PM |
|
|
"Dr. BlowMe " <usenet@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:wAUTe8388eHHGi@XtaEi...
In article <4273E37F.AFB778DC@nospam.net>,
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> posted:
IMHO atheism, according to what I've gathered from this NG, is strictly
speaking Nothing at all. Atheism is . . .
The moment you say "Atheism is" it *is*.
Atheism is very much a religion based on doctrinal
belief. Atheism is a belief system. It requires the
faith in the doctrine that God does not exist.
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God . . .
Source - WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
<stupidly crossposted groups removed>
Look, Dr. BlowMe, you left out one of the definitions from WrodNet 2.0.
Why do you have to be so dishonest?
The noun "atheism" has 2 senses in WordNet.
1. atheism, godlessness -- (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)
2. atheism -- (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)
Here's the result from dictionary.com:
a·the·ism n.
1.. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2.. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Kind of blows your ***** out of the water, doesn't it Dr. BlowMe?
David H. aa # 2217
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 06:28:12 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" wrote
: Atheism is very much a religion based on doctrinal
: belief. Atheism is a belief system. It requires the
: faith in the doctrine that God does not exist.
While it is true that some misguided dullards and deceivers do use this
sense of the word to form their nonsensical descriptions of the atheistic
position, atheists using proper etymology use the following sense of the
word to describe their position:
atheism
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
WordNet 2.1, 2005 Princeton University
a- prefix meaning "not," from Gk. a-, an- "not," from PIE base *ne "not"
theist 1662, from Gk. theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was
that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but
denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as
allowing the possibility of revelation. Theism "belief in a deity" is
recorded from 1678; meaning "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism)
is recorded from 1711. Theistic is attested from 1780.
-ism suffix forming nouns of action, state, condition, doctrine, from
Fr. -isme, from L. -isma, from Gk. -isma, from stem of verbs in -izein.
--
Bear
And I know it’s my own damn fault.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gautham" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
30 Apr 2005 07:02:46 PM |
|
|
Atheism = a-theism = not theism.
Not believing in the existence of god. It's not a doctrine and it's
definitely not a belief. Rather, it's the lack of belief in something
that's highly implausible.
Then again, you've been told this over and over again. It's not that
you don't understand, JM. In fact, I believe your ranting has
absolutely nothing to do with atheism, theism, vegetarianism, or
anything else you like to spout crap about. Your motives are completely
different, boy-o, and you know it. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 01:34:39 AM |
|
|
Atheism is very much a religion based on doctrinal
belief. Atheism is a belief system. It requires the
faith in the doctrine that God does not exist.
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God . . .
Source - WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 02:30:59 AM |
|
|
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <usenet@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:xOERo7440abFSO@VteUf...
Atheism is very much a religion based on doctrinal
belief. Atheism is a belief system. It requires the
faith in the doctrine that God does not exist.
doctrine, n. - A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or
belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group;
dogma.
Atheism is not a doctrine, because it is not a principle presented for
acceptance or belief, nor is it a belief system, and it certainly isn't a
religion. For that matter, theism is neither a doctrine, nor a belief
system, nor a religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 03:57:11 AM |
|
|
In article <TA%ce.2331$gd5.639@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> posted:
Atheism is not a doctrine . . .
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God . . .
Source - WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
Atheism is very much a religion based on doctrinal
belief. Atheism is a belief system. It requires the
faith in the doctrine that God does not exist.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism = Nothing? |
01 May 2005 05:26:38 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <usenet@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:mAIte7113UGPVi@VqeAr...
In article <TA%ce.2331$gd5.639@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> posted:
Atheism is not a doctrine . . .
atheism
n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God . . .
Source - WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
Atheism is very much a religion based on doctrinal
belief. Atheism is a belief system. It requires the
faith in the doctrine that God does not exist.
Atheism is not a doctrine, because it is not a principle presented for
acceptance or belief, nor is it a belief system, and it certainly isn't a
religion. For that matter, theism is neither a doctrine, nor a belief
system, nor a religion.
doctrine, n. - A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or
belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group;
dogma.
Atheism is not a doctrine, because it is not a principle presented for
acceptance or belief, nor is it a belief system, and it certainly isn't a
religion. For that matter, theism is neither a doctrine, nor a belief
system, nor a religion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
