| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Greg Flynn" |
| Date: |
01 Nov 2005 09:34:45 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism and its assumptions |
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because theists
begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however, that both
ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the end atheism offer
nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the most pessimistic of
ideas.
Consider the argument of Pascal and its response:
He says to the atheist that there is no reason for you not to believe since
if you do and it turns out to be true then you will be rewarded upon your
death but if you are wrong then the outcome is the same as if you had
remained an atheist, therefore, there is no loss in becoming a Christian.
The atheist would then respond, "oh yes there is a loss, I can't do all the
pleasurable things that I would have done if I became a Christian!" This is
a very reasonable response but the atheist has made a big assumption. Can
anyone guess what that is?
The concept of freewill comes from Christianity and it has a theological
basis. The idea is that if God would send us to hell for our actions then
we must have freewill. This, of course, wouldn't apply to atheism. There
is no strong argument for freewill from an atheist perspective and if you
don't have freewill then you can't increase or decrease the amount of
pleasure in your life; rather you are compelled to do the things you do. In
fact, you can't even claim intellectual superiority if you are correct
because if you believe what you believe because you must.
Greg
.
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
01 Nov 2005 10:22:59 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06:
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because
theists begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however,
that both ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the
end atheism offer nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the
most pessimistic of ideas.
Well, I guess there may be some benefit to starting a discussion by
demonstrating your stupidity and ignorance, but I sure can't think of any.
So, why don't you wander off and find the other xian fools that don't have
a clue about what atheism means, and still think that they can tell us what
we think.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
01 Nov 2005 11:07:04 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9701EE8EDE310wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06:
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because
theists begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however,
that both ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the
end atheism offer nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the
most pessimistic of ideas.
Well, I guess there may be some benefit to starting a discussion by
demonstrating your stupidity and ignorance, but I sure can't think of any.
So, why don't you wander off and find the other xian fools that don't have
a clue about what atheism means, and still think that they can tell us
what
we think.
Show me with the power of your arguments. Since I am such a fool I must be
an easy on to slay.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 10:17:47 AM |
|
|
Greg Flynn <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
The truth is, however, that both ideas begin with assumptions of equal
silliness but in the end atheism offer nothing in return.
Depends on your definition of "silliness" I suppose.
To believe in an omniscient father figure up in the sky that knows every
person's thoughts and actions is silliness.
To believe in heaven and hell is silliness.
To believe god cares whether you eat pork or what clothing you wear is
silliness.
To believe the earth is only a few thousand years old is silliness.
To believe creationism is a scientific theory is silliness.
To believe people who claim god talks to them is silliness.
To believe god can command them to murder innocent people is (tragic)
silliness.
Between such silliness and nothing, I choose nothing.
Show me with the power of your arguments. Since I am such a fool
I must be an easy on to slay.
Were that it were so. Unfortunately, most arguments started on this
newsgroup of this caliber come from people who *are* fools, and who post
solely for the attention they generate.
In my experience, there is no chance of actually having an intelligent
discussion with them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
01 Nov 2005 10:30:01 PM |
|
|
"Woden" wrote
: "Greg Flynn" wrote
: > Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because
: > theists begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however,
: > that both ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the
: > end atheism offer nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the
: > most pessimistic of ideas.
:
: Well, I guess there may be some benefit to starting a discussion by
: demonstrating your stupidity and ignorance, but I sure can't think of any.
: So, why don't you wander off and find the other xian fools that don't have
: a clue about what atheism means, and still think that they can tell us
what
: we think.
Very well said!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
01 Nov 2005 11:06:40 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06:
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because
theists begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however,
that both ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the end
atheism offer nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the most
pessimistic of ideas.
Consider the argument of Pascal and its response:
He says to the atheist that there is no reason for you not to believe
since if you do and it turns out to be true then you will be rewarded
upon your death but if you are wrong then the outcome is the same as if
you had remained an atheist,
Wrong. The situation is not either/or. You are at much greater risk
believing in the wrong gods than no gods at all. On a purely probabilistic
basis it would make more sense to become a Hindu as their gods outnumber
all the other religions combined.
therefore, there is no loss in becoming a
Christian.
Until you front up to Ahura Mazda and are required to explain your belief
in the heathen christian gods.
If the christian gods were the right ones, it still wouldn't work.
Christian gods interviewing Mr Smith: "Now lets get this straight, you only
believed because of some sort of wager?"
The atheist would then respond, "oh yes there is a loss, I
can't do all the pleasurable things that I would have done if I became a
Christian!" This is a very reasonable response but the atheist has made
a big assumption. Can anyone guess what that is?
The facts (such as prison statistics, divorse rates in highly religious
states etc) show that the christians are far more likely to be involved in
things they consider to be immoral. I suspect this is because they believe
they can be forgiven for any atrocity and therefore can get away with doing
anything they like. This probably explains all the priests and pastors
caught out getting up to no good that Yang likes to tell us about.
The concept of freewill comes from Christianity and it has a theological
basis. The idea is that if God would send us to hell for our actions
then we must have freewill.
There can be no free will if an omniscient god which created the universe
exists. Such a god would have known every thought and action of every being
that would come into existance for all time. This hypothetical god already
knew exactly what you would do at every point in your life billions of
years before you even existed. In such a situation we would be just puppets
acting out a play.
This, of course, wouldn't apply to atheism.
The christian freewill concept is nonsense from any perspective. According
to the christian myth angels rebelled in their heaven via freewill
therefore the whole concept of getting to heaven as being a reward for good
behaviour goes down the drain. If angels rebelled in heaven then there is
no reason why humans also wouldn't rebel after they got there. Angels
rebelling tells you that heaven must be a bit more shonky than the
christians claim. Mind you, just about every part of the theology
contradicts some other part. That's what you get when con artist priests
make stuff up as they go along, they can never plaster over all the cracks.
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 10:55:07 PM |
|
|
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9702B83C8E6A3Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06:
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because
theists begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however,
that both ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the end
atheism offer nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the most
pessimistic of ideas.
Consider the argument of Pascal and its response:
He says to the atheist that there is no reason for you not to believe
since if you do and it turns out to be true then you will be rewarded
upon your death but if you are wrong then the outcome is the same as if
you had remained an atheist,
Wrong. The situation is not either/or. You are at much greater risk
believing in the wrong gods than no gods at all. On a purely probabilistic
basis it would make more sense to become a Hindu as their gods outnumber
all the other religions combined.
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal. Hinduistic Pantheism is actually akin to atheism in that begins with
an assumption of reicarnation and thus proposes an infinite universe. The
concept of God is not the same as monotheism that proposes that the universe
was created by God.
Also if you were to consider the arguement of an untimate creator vs an
infinite universe there can really only be one God otherwise you are left
with sub-creators that were created by other member of a pantheon and that
pattern continues indefinitely Only monotheism is appropriate to the either
or argument proposed by Pascal.
therefore, there is no loss in becoming a
Christian.
Until you front up to Ahura Mazda and are required to explain your belief
in the heathen christian gods.
If the christian gods were the right ones, it still wouldn't work.
Christian gods interviewing Mr Smith: "Now lets get this straight, you
only
believed because of some sort of wager?"
The atheist would then respond, "oh yes there is a loss, I
can't do all the pleasurable things that I would have done if I became a
Christian!" This is a very reasonable response but the atheist has made
a big assumption. Can anyone guess what that is?
The facts (such as prison statistics, divorse rates in highly religious
states etc) show that the christians are far more likely to be involved in
things they consider to be immoral. I suspect this is because they believe
they can be forgiven for any atrocity and therefore can get away with
doing
anything they like. This probably explains all the priests and pastors
caught out getting up to no good that Yang likes to tell us about.
The concept of freewill comes from Christianity and it has a theological
basis. The idea is that if God would send us to hell for our actions
then we must have freewill.
There can be no free will if an omniscient god which created the universe
exists. Such a god would have known every thought and action of every
being
that would come into existance for all time. This hypothetical god already
knew exactly what you would do at every point in your life billions of
years before you even existed. In such a situation we would be just
puppets
acting out a play.
This is true. Freewill in the consideration of an omniscient god seems
absolutely contradictory. I concede this. But you are missing the
direction of my arguement. Its not that I can prove that I have freewill
but it is that you have no strong arguement for it either. Can you give me
an justification for freewill from the perspective of athiesm or do you
concede this point?
This, of course, wouldn't apply to atheism.
The christian freewill concept is nonsense from any perspective. According
to the christian myth angels rebelled in their heaven via freewill
therefore the whole concept of getting to heaven as being a reward for
good
behaviour goes down the drain. If angels rebelled in heaven then there is
no reason why humans also wouldn't rebel after they got there. Angels
rebelling tells you that heaven must be a bit more shonky than the
christians claim. Mind you, just about every part of the theology
contradicts some other part. That's what you get when con artist priests
make stuff up as they go along, they can never plaster over all the
cracks.
The theology of angels is sketchy to say the least and is of small
importance in the economy of salvation. In otherwords I think your making
alot out of a little. However, the theology/philosophy that is used to
understand the fall of the angels begins with the idea that angels are
non-material and are simply composed of an intellect and a will. Therefore
they don't have a brain and don't think but rather they know all that they
are capable of knowing. In the moment after their creation they made a
choice to reject or accept God. Further to be in heaven is to participate
in the beautific vision. I don't believe that the angels in the moment that
they made their choice had that in the fullest sense. As a Catholic we
believe that on earth we participate in the beautific vision to a very small
degree and therefore have the ability to reject it if we please. I see no
difference between us and the angels.
I am not offering proof of angels but since you are expounding on theology I
am correcting you mischaracterization of it.
Greg
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 03:50:41 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06:
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns9702B83C8E6A3Klazmonllurdiaxorbgo@203.97.37.6...
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06:
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because
theists begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is,
however, that both ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness
but in the end atheism offer nothing in return. The fact is that
atheism is the most pessimistic of ideas.
Consider the argument of Pascal and its response:
He says to the atheist that there is no reason for you not to believe
since if you do and it turns out to be true then you will be rewarded
upon your death but if you are wrong then the outcome is the same as
if you had remained an atheist,
Wrong. The situation is not either/or. You are at much greater risk
believing in the wrong gods than no gods at all. On a purely
probabilistic basis it would make more sense to become a Hindu as their
gods outnumber all the other religions combined.
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal. Hinduistic Pantheism is actually akin to atheism in that begins
with an assumption of reicarnation and thus proposes an infinite
universe. The concept of God is not the same as monotheism that
proposes that the universe was created by God.
I don't follow how the Hindu assumptions of reincarnation and an infinite
universe make this religion akin to atheism. That appears to be a non
sequitur to me. A second point is that none of the major religions are
monotheistic. Depending on the specific sect, christians have a large number
of gods. Take your pick from Jesus, Ghost, Father, Satan, Mary, various
lessor gods that are called angels and demon's. Sure the theologians will
deny that some of these are gods but they are just equivocating on the
meaning of the term god. It is very clear that a roman god such as Mercury is
very similar to the Christian and Moslem concept of angel for example. You
have the same list for Islam except drop out Jesus, Ghost and Mary. I suppose
that some sects of Judaism are actually monotheistic and there was the
religion of Akenaten (sp?) which was supposedly montheistic - this is
probably the source of the Judaic monotheism, as the early hebrews were
clearly polytheists. The whole idea of monotheism is really the end point of
the "my god is bigger and stronger than your god" competition - just a
playground nyah, nyah sort of thing wrapped up in philosophy to make it sound
mature. The bible stories were redacted to try and obscure this.
The only major religion that I am aware of that could be considered akin to
atheism would be some forms of Budhism. However while an atheist may be
religious, that has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is simply stated as
the lack of belief in gods of any sort. Atheists themselves may subscribe to
any philosophy or other beliefs at all, as long as that doesn't involve
belief in one or more deities.
Also if you were to consider the arguement of an untimate creator vs an
infinite universe there can really only be one God otherwise you are
left with sub-creators that were created by other member of a pantheon
and that pattern continues indefinitely Only monotheism is appropriate
to the either or argument proposed by Pascal.
Even if I accept this argument, (which I don't) you are still left with with
which monotheistic religion is the right one. Even which particular sect.
therefore, there is no loss in becoming a
Christian.
Until you front up to Ahura Mazda and are required to explain your
belief in the heathen christian gods.
If the christian gods were the right ones, it still wouldn't work.
Christian gods interviewing Mr Smith: "Now lets get this straight, you
only
believed because of some sort of wager?"
The atheist would then respond, "oh yes there is a loss, I
can't do all the pleasurable things that I would have done if I
became a Christian!" This is a very reasonable response but the
atheist has made a big assumption. Can anyone guess what that is?
The facts (such as prison statistics, divorse rates in highly religious
states etc) show that the christians are far more likely to be involved
in things they consider to be immoral. I suspect this is because they
believe they can be forgiven for any atrocity and therefore can get
away with
doing
anything they like. This probably explains all the priests and pastors
caught out getting up to no good that Yang likes to tell us about.
The concept of freewill comes from Christianity and it has a
theological basis. The idea is that if God would send us to hell for
our actions then we must have freewill.
There can be no free will if an omniscient god which created the
universe exists. Such a god would have known every thought and action
of every
being
that would come into existance for all time. This hypothetical god
already knew exactly what you would do at every point in your life
billions of years before you even existed. In such a situation we would
be just
puppets
acting out a play.
This is true. Freewill in the consideration of an omniscient god seems
absolutely contradictory. I concede this. But you are missing the
direction of my arguement. Its not that I can prove that I have
freewill but it is that you have no strong arguement for it either. Can
you give me an justification for freewill from the perspective of
athiesm or do you concede this point?
I concede that I have no real idea of what freewill actually means, so why
would I try to justify it. I don't follow your line of reasoning here.
This, of course, wouldn't apply to atheism.
The christian freewill concept is nonsense from any perspective.
According to the christian myth angels rebelled in their heaven via
freewill therefore the whole concept of getting to heaven as being a
reward for
good
behaviour goes down the drain. If angels rebelled in heaven then there
is no reason why humans also wouldn't rebel after they got there.
Angels rebelling tells you that heaven must be a bit more shonky than
the christians claim. Mind you, just about every part of the theology
contradicts some other part. That's what you get when con artist
priests make stuff up as they go along, they can never plaster over all
the
cracks.
The theology of angels is sketchy to say the least and is of small
importance in the economy of salvation. In otherwords I think your
making alot out of a little. However, the theology/philosophy that is
used to understand the fall of the angels begins with the idea that
angels are non-material and are simply composed of an intellect and a
will. Therefore they don't have a brain and don't think but rather they
know all that they are capable of knowing. In the moment after their
creation they made a choice to reject or accept God.
How could they reject god when they had the actual knowledge of its'
existence. That is absurd. If by 'reject', you mean disagreed with it and
this was based on knowledge that was put into them by the god then that would
imply the god intended them to do that.
Further to be in
heaven is to participate in the beautific vision. I don't believe that
the angels in the moment that they made their choice had that in the
fullest sense. As a Catholic we believe that on earth we participate in
the beautific vision to a very small degree and therefore have the
ability to reject it if we please. I see no difference between us and
the angels.
So you are agreeing that you could go to heaven and decide like the angels
that you had got a bum deal?
Klazmon.
I am not offering proof of angels but since you are expounding on
theology I am correcting you mischaracterization of it.
Greg
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 03:59:41 PM |
|
|
In <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>, "Greg Flynn"
<bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Hinduistic Pantheism is actually akin to atheism in that begins
with an assumption of reicarnation and thus proposes an infinite universe.
You are seriously clueless.
Again, even if space-time is finite, it can be said the universe "has
always been" because the idea of time before time is nonsensical.
Basically, though, nobody knows. The idea that the universe "cannot" be
eternal is based on an old and out of date understanding of the universe.
The things we see at the macro level cannot be eternal but that doesn't
mean the universe itself cannot be.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://www.nola.com/
"FEMA email warned of disaster"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5332250C
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 04:18:34 AM |
|
|
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 06:30:47 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The unsophisticated frequently miss the joke.
-- Therion T. Ware
The unsophisticated frequently ARE the joke.
-- Fritz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 08:40:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear - he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear (as
well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be allowed to
touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't have
appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this holy
underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on wearing them
all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
I guess if you don't humiliate yourself and make yourself constantly
uncomfortable, you aren't really worshiping something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 06:53:36 PM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear - he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear (as
well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be allowed to
touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't have
appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this holy
underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on wearing them
all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same regularity
as normal underwear. So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
I guess if you don't humiliate yourself and make yourself constantly
uncomfortable, you aren't really worshiping something.
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 10:51:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear - he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear (as
well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be allowed to
touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't have
appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this holy
underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on wearing them
all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same regularity
as normal underwear.
I'm not exactly sure, but some of the comments of ex-mormons made it
sound like you don't remove them for peeing, but use some kind of slit
in them.
Like you said - yuk
So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
She wears the bra and panties over the union suit. I guess it creates
an interesting case of bunching.
I guess if you don't humiliate yourself and make yourself constantly
uncomfortable, you aren't really worshiping something.
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
I do - but only when it's fun and the party being worshipped is
properly grateful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
04 Nov 2005 10:56:20 AM |
|
|
On 3 Nov 2005 22:51:03 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <4370e795.266980125@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear - he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear (as
well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be allowed to
touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't have
appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this holy
underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on wearing them
all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same regularity
as normal underwear.
I'm not exactly sure, but some of the comments of ex-mormons made it
sound like you don't remove them for peeing, but use some kind of slit
in them.
Like you said - yuk
I think that moved all the way up to ICK.
So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
She wears the bra and panties over the union suit. I guess it creates
an interesting case of bunching.
Oh my. LMAO
I guess if you don't humiliate yourself and make yourself constantly
uncomfortable, you aren't really worshiping something.
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
I do - but only when it's fun and the party being worshipped is
properly grateful.
Well, there is that. :)
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
04 Nov 2005 01:41:41 PM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 22:51:03 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <4370e795.266980125@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear - he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear (as
well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be allowed to
touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't have
appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this holy
underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on wearing them
all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same regularity
as normal underwear.
I'm not exactly sure, but some of the comments of ex-mormons made it
sound like you don't remove them for peeing, but use some kind of slit
in them.
Like you said - yuk
I think that moved all the way up to ICK.
So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
She wears the bra and panties over the union suit. I guess it creates
an interesting case of bunching.
Whaf she (or he) wears a thong?
Oh my. LMAO
I guess if you don't humiliate yourself and make yourself constantly
uncomfortable, you aren't really worshiping something.
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
I do - but only when it's fun and the party being worshipped is
properly grateful.
Well, there is that. :)
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
--
Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run
away... It really pisses him off.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
04 Nov 2005 08:56:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:41:41 -0500, Tink
<kjgrish@comcast.net.spamno.ccom> wrote:
Liz wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 22:51:03 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <4370e795.266980125@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear - he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear (as
well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be allowed to
touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't have
appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this holy
underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on wearing them
all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same regularity
as normal underwear.
I'm not exactly sure, but some of the comments of ex-mormons made it
sound like you don't remove them for peeing, but use some kind of slit
in them.
Like you said - yuk
I think that moved all the way up to ICK.
So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
She wears the bra and panties over the union suit. I guess it creates
an interesting case of bunching.
Whaf she (or he) wears a thong?
Somehow, I doubt that a common problem with mormons.
Oh my. LMAO
I guess if you don't humiliate yourself and make yourself constantly
uncomfortable, you aren't really worshiping something.
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
I do - but only when it's fun and the party being worshipped is
properly grateful.
Well, there is that. :)
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
04 Nov 2005 03:06:13 PM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 22:51:03 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <4370e795.266980125@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all
religons are equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking
animals are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear -
he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear
over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear
(as well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be
allowed to touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't
have appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this
holy underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on
wearing them all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same
regularity as normal underwear.
I'm not exactly sure, but some of the comments of ex-mormons made it
sound like you don't remove them for peeing, but use some kind of
slit in them.
Like you said - yuk
I think that moved all the way up to ICK.
So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
She wears the bra and panties over the union suit. I guess it
creates an interesting case of bunching.
Oh my. LMAO
This IS funny.
By gum! It looks like an entire book
could be written on the
"Mysteries of Mormon underwear - By An
Unbeliever".
We would need photos of course.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
04 Nov 2005 04:29:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:06:13 -0600, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
in news message <11mnid9qagmv303@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
Liz wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 22:51:03 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <4370e795.266980125@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
[----]
So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
She wears the bra and panties over the union suit. I guess it
creates an interesting case of bunching.
Oh my. LMAO
This IS funny.
By gum! It looks like an entire book
could be written on the
"Mysteries of Mormon underwear - By An
Unbeliever".
We would need photos of course.
I don't think I want photos. In fact, I think line drawings would be
too much information.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Skinner" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
05 Nov 2005 03:21:51 AM |
|
|
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Liz wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 22:51:03 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <4370e795.266980125@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all
religons are equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking
animals are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear -
he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear
over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear
(as well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be
allowed to touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't
have appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this
holy underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on
wearing them all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same
regularity as normal underwear.
I'm not exactly sure, but some of the comments of ex-mormons made it
sound like you don't remove them for peeing, but use some kind of
slit in them.
Like you said - yuk
I think that moved all the way up to ICK.
So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
She wears the bra and panties over the union suit. I guess it
creates an interesting case of bunching.
Oh my. LMAO
This IS funny.
By gum! It looks like an entire book
could be written on the
"Mysteries of Mormon underwear - By An
Unbeliever".
We would need photos of course.
Oz media hooligan John Saffran did a large segment on these Magic
Underpants in his "Saffran vs God" series. Unlikely to be screened in
the US though. If you're interested:
http://www6.sbs.com.au/johnsafranvsgod/index.php
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0423675/
--
Jon
a.a.#277
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
06 Nov 2005 03:50:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:18:34 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> in news message
<nemo0037-9299EB.05165603112005@news1.west.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <LKgaf.13854$W%2.4354@trnddc06>,
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
Very interesting point! However, you are assuming that all religons are
equal.
They are to us, Sparky.
Maybe not equal, but all lack the ability to produce evidence to
support the proposition of the existence of the supernatural.
Some religions are definitely sillier than others. Of course, I
realize that the silliness quotient may be affected by a cultural
bias. I mean some people think magic underwear and talking animals
are normal.
I was just telling my husband about those Mormon magic underwear - he
had never heard of them. Apparently they wear regular underwear over
what appear to be shortened union suits. They are holy underwear (as
well as often holey underwear) and are not supposed to be allowed to
touch the floor or sit in a dryer.
The explaination that I found from the Mormon is that they don't have
appointed priests - that anyone can do that job - so this holy
underwear is like vestaments - except that they insist on wearing them
all the time and they get pretty, uh soiled.
oh yuk I just assumed that they were washed with the same regularity
as normal underwear. So does a woman Mormon wear a bra over or under
the union suit? Or at all?
I guess if you don't humiliate yourself and make yourself constantly
uncomfortable, you aren't really worshiping something.
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
What about hand-rolled Cuban cigars?
[wide-eyed innocence]
--
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
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
06 Nov 2005 03:56:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:50:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> in news
message <gkusm1tdiec31v96vr9ftpph9apbbc4n47@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
What about hand-rolled Cuban cigars?
[wide-eyed innocence]
I think worship is too strong a word for that. Lets just leave it as
enjoy immensely. :)
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted Ath.D BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
07 Nov 2005 11:36:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:56:59 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:50:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> in news
message <gkusm1tdiec31v96vr9ftpph9apbbc4n47@4ax.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:53:36 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On 3 Nov 2005 08:40:19 -0600, (Kate ) in news
message <436f1ff2.215872812@news-west.newscene.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:30:47 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
I'm proud to say that I'm not worshipping anything.
What about hand-rolled Cuban cigars?
[wide-eyed innocence]
I think worship is too strong a word for that. Lets just leave it as
enjoy immensely. :)
[chuckling]
Cheers!
--
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
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 10:28:18 AM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06...
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because theists
begin with huge and silly assumptions.
What makes you think you can speak for anyone but yourself?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 10:27:35 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06...
Atheists believe
Hmm. You start off with your own assumption.
that it is intellectual to be an atheist because theists
And you are in error.
begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however, that both
ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the end atheism
offer
nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the most pessimistic of
ideas.
Consider the argument of Pascal and its response:
He says to the atheist that there is no reason for you not to believe
since
if you do and it turns out to be true then you will be rewarded upon your
death but if you are wrong then the outcome is the same as if you had
remained an atheist, therefore, there is no loss in becoming a Christian.
The atheist would then respond,
Again, you assume and assume incorrectly.
Do you want to make a strawman?
"oh yes there is a loss, I can't do all the
pleasurable things that I would have done if I became a Christian!" This
is
a very reasonable response but the atheist has made a big assumption. Can
anyone guess what that is?
The concept of freewill comes from Christianity and it has a theological
basis. The idea is that if God would send us to hell for our actions then
we must have freewill. This, of course, wouldn't apply to atheism. There
is no strong argument for freewill from an atheist perspective and if you
don't have freewill then you can't increase or decrease the amount of
pleasure in your life; rather you are compelled to do the things you do.
In
fact, you can't even claim intellectual superiority if you are correct
because if you believe what you believe because you must.
What is free will?
Can you give an example?
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 08:14:23 AM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06...
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because theists
begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however, that both
ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the end atheism
offer
nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the most pessimistic of
ideas.
Consider the argument of Pascal and its response:
He says to the atheist that there is no reason for you not to believe
since
if you do and it turns out to be true then you will be rewarded upon your
death but if you are wrong then the outcome is the same as if you had
remained an atheist, therefore, there is no loss in becoming a Christian.
The atheist would then respond, "oh yes there is a loss, I can't do all
the
pleasurable things that I would have done if I became a Christian!" This
is
a very reasonable response but the atheist has made a big assumption. Can
anyone guess what that is?
Why would you assume that the atheist would make suuch a response? Since you
are most likely a paste-and-run troll this would be a rhetorical question.
The concept of freewill comes from Christianity and it has a theological
basis. The idea is that if God would send us to hell for our actions then
we must have freewill. This, of course, wouldn't apply to atheism. There
is no strong argument for freewill from an atheist perspective and if you
don't have freewill then you can't increase or decrease the amount of
pleasure in your life; rather you are compelled to do the things you do.
In
fact, you can't even claim intellectual superiority if you are correct
because if you believe what you believe because you must.
If I must believe something I could still be superior because of pure
chance, depending on your definition of superior.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 12:10:43 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06...
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because theists
begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however, that both
ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the end atheism
offer
nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the most pessimistic of
ideas.
yeah lets believe in god cause it's nicer....
Now which one should I pick?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 04:05:07 PM |
|
|
In article <dkavf3$4hg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
kathryn said...
yeah lets believe in god cause it's nicer....
Now which one should I pick?
I'm with Nietzsche on this one: "I would only believe in a god
who could dance."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Flynn" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 10:56:26 PM |
|
|
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dd3021a82e92ee898992c@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <dkavf3$4hg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
kathryn said...
yeah lets believe in god cause it's nicer....
Now which one should I pick?
I'm with Nietzsche on this one: "I would only believe in a god
who could dance."
Is Disco ok because I am pretty good at that ; - )
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
03 Nov 2005 02:16:42 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 04:56:26 GMT, "Greg Flynn"
<bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dd3021a82e92ee898992c@newsgroups.comcast.net...
In article <dkavf3$4hg$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
kathryn said...
yeah lets believe in god cause it's nicer....
Now which one should I pick?
I'm with Nietzsche on this one: "I would only believe in a god
who could dance."
Is Disco ok because I am pretty good at that ; - )
Figures. If I remember the '70s correctly (and I believe I do, having
lived through them), the positive correlation between abysmal
stupidity and a liking for disco was very nearly 100%.
:-P
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its assumptions |
02 Nov 2005 11:30:56 PM |
|
|
"Greg Flynn" <bunpokeNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ptW9f.1896$W%2.1363@trnddc06...
Atheists believe that it is intellectual to be an atheist because theists
begin with huge and silly assumptions. The truth is, however, that both
ideas begin with assumptions of equal silliness but in the end atheism
offer
nothing in return. The fact is that atheism is the most pessimistic of
ideas.
The assumptions are yours, nasty Christian. You are
the believer. You are the one who has to provide
evidence that what you believe in actually exists. That
is simple logic. And, your statement that atheism is
pessimistic is another attack on your part. When I realized
that I was an atheist, I felt free of religious garbage,
but that did not mean that I suddenly became immoral
and wanted to destroy things. That kind of nonsense is
only lies spread by Christians like you.
Consider the argument of Pascal and its response:
He says to the atheist that there is no reason for you not to believe
since
if you do and it turns out to be true then you will be rewarded upon your
death but if you are wrong then the outcome is the same as if you had
remained an atheist, therefore, there is no loss in becoming a Christian.
The atheist would then respond, "oh yes there is a loss, I can't do all
the
pleasurable things that I would have done if I became a Christian!" This
is
a very reasonable response but the atheist has made a big assumption. Can
anyone guess what that is?
That you are aware that Pascal's Wager has been
posted to alt.atheism many, many times over the
last five+ years. How do you know that the god
Pascal accepted was the right god? That is an
assumption that Christians make. What if the right
god comes from another religion? What if there is
no god of any kind at all? Christians like Pascal
assume that their god is the right one simply through
'faith'. That isn't acceptable to an atheist. We want
evidence.
The concept of freewill comes from Christianity and it has a theological
basis. The idea is that if God would send us to hell for our actions then
we must have freewill. This, of course, wouldn't apply to atheism. There
is no strong argument for freewill from an atheist perspective and if you
don't have freewill then you can't increase or decrease the amount of
pleasure in your life; rather you are compelled to do the things you do.
In
fact, you can't even claim intellectual superiority if you are correct
because if you believe what you believe because you must.
There is no such thing as 'free will' when your only choices
are to surrender to Christianity out of fear or to bravely go
against that fear and make a choice that Christians say will
send you to their hell. It would only be a real choice if the
threat of hell was left out of it. Otherwise, there is no choice
at all.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
'I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens,
he came in peace and then died, only to come
back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra
terrestrial. I loved that little guy'. -Reverend
Lovejoy (The Simpsons)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Greg
.
|
|
|
|
