| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"StMichael" |
| Date: |
24 Mar 2007 09:13:29 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism and its philosophical problems |
Atheism lacks any real metaphysical justification for its claims.
Likewise, certain problematic conclusions follow:
1) With a lack of an objective basis for reality comes a lack of an
objective basis for truth. As such, any statements about reality fail
and atheism becomes purely subjective/nihilistic (ultimately).
2) If one embraces a pure materialism (which atheism ostensibly does,
in general), all logical thought becomes utterly senseless and
useless. In this event, all natural science or possibility of
knowledge becomes impossible. Again, one is led into the realm of a
purely subjective/nihilistic thought (or, more properly, a denial of
the possibility of thought).
3) A lack of concrete basis in reality for good or evil actions leads
to a totally subjective morality determined one of three ways: either
by the state (leading to a totalitarian model or some version of
morality following on the social zeitgeist), or by the individual
(which means everything is moral and nothing is moral), or not at all
(moral nihilism). Eventually, it would likewise seem the third option
is inevitable one way or another.
Tell me what you think here.
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 12:01:58 PM |
|
|
On 2 Apr 2007 09:55:36 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life?
Demonstrate that there is one, moron.
I don't believe atheism
can answer this question in a satisfactory way.
Why the ***** should it, when your question is based on your religion's
metaphysical presumptions which have no validity outside it?
And why do you expect the exact equivalent of not believing in the
fairies at the bottom of the gardenm to answer anything?
You are led into a
position where human happiness is impossible or meaningless. Either
A liar as well as an idiot.
way, nihilistic outlook. Likewise, I cannot see a ground in which to
In your dreams, lying idiot.
base either an objectively founded morality or objective truth values.
All values are inherently subjective for an atheist, especially when
such is a materialist.
A bigot as well as a liar and an idiot.
Religion answers this question succinctly as: our purpose is to serve
It only answers loaded questions that are based on its beliefs, which
have neither validity nor justification outside it.
God and to be happy with Him forever. Morality finds its basis in
How can anything's purpose be to serve a figment of yiour deluded
imagination, moron?
natural law, which is ultimately rooted in God's eternal law. Truth
Prove it, liar.
finds its foundation on the nature of being which also ultimately
finds its origin in God (we believe God is Truth itself).
Speak for yourself, brainwashed moron.
Yours In Christ,
His mouth or his *****?
Either way I hope you are wearing a condon because sodomising 2000
year dead corpses can damage your health.
StMichael
Now go ***** yourself and stop being so stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 12:08:54 PM |
|
|
StMichael wrote:
OK, what is the end or purpose of human life? I don't believe atheism
can answer this question in a satisfactory way. You are led into a
position where human happiness is impossible or meaningless. Either
way, nihilistic outlook. Likewise, I cannot see a ground in which to
base either an objectively founded morality or objective truth values.
All values are inherently subjective for an atheist, especially when
such is a materialist.
Religion answers this question succinctly as: our purpose is to serve
God and to be happy with Him forever. Morality finds its basis in
natural law, which is ultimately rooted in God's eternal law. Truth
finds its foundation on the nature of being which also ultimately
finds its origin in God (we believe God is Truth itself).
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Explain why life needs a purpose, then you might have something to talk
about.
Explain why the word atheism gives you so many problems.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.secularity.com/ktayloraz
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 07:32:34 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 1 Apr 2007 19:13:53 -0700, "StMichael"
<stmichael71@gmail.com> let us all know that:
Anyone, how do you propose than atheism avoids nihilism?
How doesn't it?
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
01 Apr 2007 10:33:40 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2007 19:13:53 -0700, "StMichael" <stmichael71@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anyone, how do you propose than atheism avoids nihilism? 'Cause it
doesn't seem an answer has been proposed.
Exactly the same way not believing in Santa Claus does, deliberately
stupid, in-your-face moron.
Yours In Christ,
His mouth or his *****, deliberately disrespectful moron?
StMichael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 06:35:29 AM |
|
|
On 2 Apr, 03:13, "StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone, how do you propose than atheism avoids nihilism? 'Cause it
doesn't seem an answer has been proposed.
Yours In Christ,
StMichael
Possibly becasue no intelligible question has been asked. Try to
phrase one, and you may get a response.
Steve
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
01 Apr 2007 08:32:13 PM |
|
|
StMichael wrote:
Anyone, how do you propose than atheism avoids nihilism? 'Cause it
doesn't seem an answer has been proposed.
How does being a hypothetical god's pet monkey, (even for
eternity) add meaning to a human life? 'Cause it doesn't
seem an answer has been proposed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
02 Apr 2007 06:25:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 22:32:13 -0300, John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <wfmdnbRh5NSn9o3bnZ2dnUVZ_qupnZ2d@adelphia.com>
StMichael wrote:
Anyone, how do you propose than atheism avoids nihilism? 'Cause it
doesn't seem an answer has been proposed.
How does being a hypothetical god's pet monkey, (even for
eternity) add meaning to a human life? 'Cause it doesn't
seem an answer has been proposed.
How does serkgjnrtegk reg ertgpk4tjg?
'Cause it doesn't seem an answer has been proposed.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
30 Mar 2007 07:23:19 AM |
|
|
In article <pa9p031s2ej0ffghi7fqc4ts996chn95i5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:41:36 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
- Refer: <572bnkF2arhodU1@mid.individual.net>
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-02FD80.22002528032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <56vhjmF2b0bjhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
snip
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind
so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are.
Whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree, because no one controls my
behavior, capice?
If you don't like it, feel free to put me in your killfile.
That sums up my approach to this matter to a "T".
You and I see 'aye to I' on many things 'emotionally robust', Robyn!
;)
I am an adult, and am quite prepared to accept the results of my
considered actions and considered utterances, and resent having what I
see at the time as a frustrated kindergarten teacher "telling" me how
I should react.
It gets my "dander" up, don't you know old chap.
It would be vastly different if she were merely suggesting a different
course, and explaining her modus operandum for doing so.
But Luna is NOT doing this.
If she modified her approach from that of command admonishment (a
slight exaggeration with deliberate didactic intent) to that of an
optional "friendly suggestion", she would have a success rate of
nearly 99%, instead of her current rate of around 1%.
--
Thanks! I did mean it as a friendly suggestion, and reading over what I
wrote I see I failed in my intended tone. That "kindergarten teacher"
mode is hard to turn off. I'll try harder in the future, and I'm sorry.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 09:58:02 PM |
|
|
On Mar 29, 9:58 am, Luna <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
In article <56vhjmF2b0bj...@mid.individual.net>,
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
Agreed, although technically _all_ theists are mentally ill so I don't
see much point making a distinction in Mark's case. The question I
would ask is this "They condemn us and so we condemn them but does the
fact that we are right and they are wrong alone make us better than
them?" Keep in mind that they genuinely think that they are "saving"
us and that they regard us as being no different than the people who
supposedly laughed at Noah. Theism is a kind of self fulfilling
prophesy: they expect people to think they are crazy and ridicule them
so laughing at them and insulting them only feeds into their martyr
complex. They don't expect us to be more reasonable than them. It's
when they start calling us heathens and devil worshippers and start
telling us that we're condemned to Hell that we've won, especially
from the point of view of agnostics out there sitting on the fence.
The last thing we want to do is make the theists look like the
victims. LOL!
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 07:36:01 AM |
|
|
In article <1175137082.591950.53860@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 9:58 am, Luna <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
In article <56vhjmF2b0bj...@mid.individual.net>,
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
Agreed, although technically _all_ theists are mentally ill so I don't
see much point making a distinction in Mark's case. The question I
would ask is this "They condemn us and so we condemn them but does the
fact that we are right and they are wrong alone make us better than
them?" Keep in mind that they genuinely think that they are "saving"
us and that they regard us as being no different than the people who
supposedly laughed at Noah. Theism is a kind of self fulfilling
prophesy: they expect people to think they are crazy and ridicule them
so laughing at them and insulting them only feeds into their martyr
complex. They don't expect us to be more reasonable than them. It's
when they start calling us heathens and devil worshippers and start
telling us that we're condemned to Hell that we've won, especially
from the point of view of agnostics out there sitting on the fence.
The last thing we want to do is make the theists look like the
victims. LOL!
Martin
I posted a reply before I read yours, and you make one of my points
better than I did. Though I don't think of religious faith as a mental
illness, more a continuation of a childlike view of the world. Children
are not considered mentally ill just because they have an imaginary
friend, or think there's a monster under the bed, or believe in Santa
Claus and the Tooth Fairy. In fact, that's considered to be a normal,
healthy imagination. When they grow up they naturally stop believing in
these things, but they may continue to believe in a god, partly because
that is socially acceptable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 08:26:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:36:01 GMT, Luna
<lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
In article <1175137082.591950.53860@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 9:58 am, Luna <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
In article <56vhjmF2b0bj...@mid.individual.net>,
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
Agreed, although technically _all_ theists are mentally ill so I don't
see much point making a distinction in Mark's case. The question I
would ask is this "They condemn us and so we condemn them but does the
fact that we are right and they are wrong alone make us better than
them?" Keep in mind that they genuinely think that they are "saving"
us and that they regard us as being no different than the people who
supposedly laughed at Noah. Theism is a kind of self fulfilling
prophesy: they expect people to think they are crazy and ridicule them
so laughing at them and insulting them only feeds into their martyr
complex. They don't expect us to be more reasonable than them. It's
when they start calling us heathens and devil worshippers and start
telling us that we're condemned to Hell that we've won, especially
from the point of view of agnostics out there sitting on the fence.
The last thing we want to do is make the theists look like the
victims. LOL!
Martin
I posted a reply before I read yours, and you make one of my points
better than I did. Though I don't think of religious faith as a mental
illness, more a continuation of a childlike view of the world. Children
are not considered mentally ill just because they have an imaginary
friend, or think there's a monster under the bed, or believe in Santa
Claus and the Tooth Fairy. In fact, that's considered to be a normal,
healthy imagination. When they grow up they naturally stop believing in
these things, but they may continue to believe in a god, partly because
that is socially acceptable.
It becomes a mental illness when it replaces reality and makes them
treat those without it as subnormal, objects of bullying etc.
We see this daily, from the "no atheists in fox holes" nastiness,
through the constant misrepresentation and villificalion of atheists
all the way to the top. I doubt any atheists ever forgave George Bush
(the father) telling us that we should not be citizens and could not
be patriotic because "this is one nationunder God".
It is hardly rocket science that there are thousands of different
religions out there, all of which are only special, "more real than
all the others" to their believers, etc. Or that everybody else is
going to see theirs in much the same way they see all the others.
Or that if they could only live and let live, or had the courtesy and
common sense not to talk about it to others with the implicit
presumption that they were correct and everybody else wrong, there
would be no reaction.
These are all symptoms of their mental illness.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 11:55:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:58:48 GMT, Luna
<lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lunachick-02FD80.22002528032007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <56vhjmF2b0bjhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C09854.08250928032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889ocaqe5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5.fsf@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we
type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is
alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real,
then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
--
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
What business is it of yours to directly advise mt that my morals are
in need of adjustment, so that they match YOUR idea of what they
should be?
For that is EXACTLY what you are doing, and not for the first time.
You sound "holier than thou" for a very good reason.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 07:29:48 AM |
|
|
In article <8jhm03d8vseor18g1gj4qu0rpvmbifjo3d@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:58:48 GMT, Luna
<lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lunachick-02FD80.22002528032007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <56vhjmF2b0bjhU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C09854.08250928032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889ocaqe5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5.fsf@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we
type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is
alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real,
then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously
not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
--
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind
so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
What business is it of yours to directly advise mt that my morals are
in need of adjustment, so that they match YOUR idea of what they
should be?
For that is EXACTLY what you are doing, and not for the first time.
You sound "holier than thou" for a very good reason.
--
Just as you criticize Earnest, and I criticize you for the way in which
you criticize him, and you criticize me for my criticizing you, that's
how newsgroups roll. I don't spend a lot of time analyzing my own
morals and ethics, but I guess this exchange has made me realize that
part of my own moral code is to stand up and say something if I see an
injustice.
I'm sure on some level I want to present myself in a good light, but
more importantly I want something bigger. We're a group that is
currently marginalized in society probably more than any other. So,
ideally, I'd like the image of atheists as a whole to be one of calm,
rational, free thinkers who can stand on logic and reason without
resorting to personal attacks. I don't like the idea of a casual lurker
in this group getting the impression that atheists see nothing wrong in
picking on a mentally ill person, so as I see it, my being an atheist
and a participant in this group is what makes our image my business.
I don't mean to be smug, I know that I sometimes come across that way,
and I'm sorry. I just don't have the ability to keep my mouth shut if I
think someone's being unnecessarily hurtful. If that tendency of mine
lands me in some killfiles, I'm willing to face that consequence. But I
will continue to read your posts, because despite the occasional mean
tone there is much of substance that is worth reading.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 12:45:58 PM |
|
|
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
snip
Just as you criticize Earnest, and I criticize you for the way in which
you criticize him, and you criticize me for my criticizing you, that's
how newsgroups roll. I don't spend a lot of time analyzing my own
morals and ethics, but I guess this exchange has made me realize that
part of my own moral code is to stand up and say something if I see an
injustice.
I'm sure on some level I want to present myself in a good light, but
more importantly I want something bigger.
See, this is where you and I are definitely different.
A) I don't give a ***** what anyone thinks of me.
B) I don't take Usenet that seriously.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 05:40:11 PM |
|
|
In article <572bvqF2al4bqU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
snip
Just as you criticize Earnest, and I criticize you for the way in which
you criticize him, and you criticize me for my criticizing you, that's
how newsgroups roll. I don't spend a lot of time analyzing my own
morals and ethics, but I guess this exchange has made me realize that
part of my own moral code is to stand up and say something if I see an
injustice.
I'm sure on some level I want to present myself in a good light, but
more importantly I want something bigger.
See, this is where you and I are definitely different.
A) I don't give a ***** what anyone thinks of me.
B) I don't take Usenet that seriously.
Yeah, we're different in that, for sure. I care a lot about what other
people think of me. Mostly I want other people's perceptions of me to
match the that way I think I'm coming across. It doesn't always work,
it's an ongoing process. :o)
And, I don't take Usenet seriously enough to get upset about any
personal attacks against me, just as in real life I don't choose to get
upset about being insulted. (I do get upset if someone mistakes my
intentions, but it's getting upset at myself for not communicating
effectively) But, I know there are people who are more sensitive than I
am, and I do care about them. Even if I've never met them and never
will, even if I probably wouldn't even like them if I did meet them. I
know it's weird, I know I'm weird that way, and I don't expect other
people to feel the same, so that's why my argument against attacking
Mark Earnest wasn't based on trying to get other people to care about
his feelings, but rather trying to get people to care about kindness in
general, or portraying a positive image of atheists for the more
pragmatic among us. Maybe it's a waste of time, but maybe it isn't. I
know for sure it's a waste of time waiting for some imaginary god to
command us to be nicer to each other, so if we want a kinder world it's
up to us. ;o)
Anyway, Robyn, I can understand and respect your point of view on this.
I still think you're a nifty cool chick.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
30 Mar 2007 09:31:12 AM |
|
|
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-A5CE0F.18414829032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <572bvqF2al4bqU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
snip
Just as you criticize Earnest, and I criticize you for the way in which
you criticize him, and you criticize me for my criticizing you, that's
how newsgroups roll. I don't spend a lot of time analyzing my own
morals and ethics, but I guess this exchange has made me realize that
part of my own moral code is to stand up and say something if I see an
injustice.
I'm sure on some level I want to present myself in a good light, but
more importantly I want something bigger.
See, this is where you and I are definitely different.
A) I don't give a ***** what anyone thinks of me.
B) I don't take Usenet that seriously.
Yeah, we're different in that, for sure. I care a lot about what other
people think of me. Mostly I want other people's perceptions of me to
match the that way I think I'm coming across. It doesn't always work,
it's an ongoing process. :o)
Frankly, I gave up on that a long time ago. It's just not in me to be a
conformist. My mother tried for decades to make me into something I wasn't.
I finally told her to kiss off, this is me, if you don't like it, you can
get stuffed. That's probably why I bristle when someone says, "You know,
you really shouldn't act that way...." Bad memories ;)
And, I don't take Usenet seriously enough to get upset about any
personal attacks against me, just as in real life I don't choose to get
upset about being insulted. (I do get upset if someone mistakes my
intentions, but it's getting upset at myself for not communicating
effectively) But, I know there are people who are more sensitive than I
am, and I do care about them. Even if I've never met them and never
will, even if I probably wouldn't even like them if I did meet them. I
know it's weird, I know I'm weird that way, and I don't expect other
people to feel the same, so that's why my argument against attacking
Mark Earnest wasn't based on trying to get other people to care about
his feelings, but rather trying to get people to care about kindness in
general, or portraying a positive image of atheists for the more
pragmatic among us. Maybe it's a waste of time, but maybe it isn't. I
know for sure it's a waste of time waiting for some imaginary god to
command us to be nicer to each other, so if we want a kinder world it's
up to us. ;o)
I see what you're saying, but it's not in my nature to be "kinder &
gentler". I'm cynical, sarcastic and often downright snarky. As I've told
my friends, "C'mon, you need people like me to make you feel better about
yourself. Someone's got to be on the dark side" ;)
Anyway, Robyn, I can understand and respect your point of view on this.
I still think you're a nifty cool chick.
That's very nice to hear - Thanks! (Okay, perhaps there are times when I do
care what people think of me) ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
30 Mar 2007 12:13:10 PM |
|
|
In article <574kujF2a2odaU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-A5CE0F.18414829032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <572bvqF2al4bqU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
snip
Just as you criticize Earnest, and I criticize you for the way in which
you criticize him, and you criticize me for my criticizing you, that's
how newsgroups roll. I don't spend a lot of time analyzing my own
morals and ethics, but I guess this exchange has made me realize that
part of my own moral code is to stand up and say something if I see an
injustice.
I'm sure on some level I want to present myself in a good light, but
more importantly I want something bigger.
See, this is where you and I are definitely different.
A) I don't give a ***** what anyone thinks of me.
B) I don't take Usenet that seriously.
Yeah, we're different in that, for sure. I care a lot about what other
people think of me. Mostly I want other people's perceptions of me to
match the that way I think I'm coming across. It doesn't always work,
it's an ongoing process. :o)
Frankly, I gave up on that a long time ago. It's just not in me to be a
conformist. My mother tried for decades to make me into something I wasn't.
I finally told her to kiss off, this is me, if you don't like it, you can
get stuffed. That's probably why I bristle when someone says, "You know,
you really shouldn't act that way...." Bad memories ;)
Hmm, I don't think of it so much as being a conformist, but rather
wanting to be an effective communicator. If I'm *****, I want
people to think "She's *****." I want people's perceptions of me
to be accurate.
And, I don't take Usenet seriously enough to get upset about any
personal attacks against me, just as in real life I don't choose to get
upset about being insulted. (I do get upset if someone mistakes my
intentions, but it's getting upset at myself for not communicating
effectively) But, I know there are people who are more sensitive than I
am, and I do care about them. Even if I've never met them and never
will, even if I probably wouldn't even like them if I did meet them. I
know it's weird, I know I'm weird that way, and I don't expect other
people to feel the same, so that's why my argument against attacking
Mark Earnest wasn't based on trying to get other people to care about
his feelings, but rather trying to get people to care about kindness in
general, or portraying a positive image of atheists for the more
pragmatic among us. Maybe it's a waste of time, but maybe it isn't. I
know for sure it's a waste of time waiting for some imaginary god to
command us to be nicer to each other, so if we want a kinder world it's
up to us. ;o)
I see what you're saying, but it's not in my nature to be "kinder &
gentler". I'm cynical, sarcastic and often downright snarky. As I've told
my friends, "C'mon, you need people like me to make you feel better about
yourself. Someone's got to be on the dark side" ;)
Anyway, Robyn, I can understand and respect your point of view on this.
I still think you're a nifty cool chick.
That's very nice to hear - Thanks! (Okay, perhaps there are times when I do
care what people think of me) ;)
Well, it's nice to hear that you thought it was nice to hear!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
29 Mar 2007 03:37:33 AM |
|
|
On Mar 29, 12:55 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:58:48 GMT, Luna<lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lunachick-02FD80.22002528032...@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <56vhjmF2b0bj...@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C09854.08250928032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889oca...@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5....@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c....@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patr...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we
type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is
alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real,
then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
--
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
Well, to be honest, he doesn't seem to mind so..............................
:)
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
What business is it of yours to directly advise mt that my morals are
in need of adjustment, so that they match YOUR idea of what they
should be?
For that is EXACTLY what you are doing, and not for the first time.
You sound "holier than thou" for a very good reason.
Forgive her. You see, when you act like a five year old her maternal
instincts rise to the surface.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
30 Mar 2007 09:05:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:58:48 GMT, Luna
<lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
I'll tell you what, kid. You come up with some verifiable, expert
supplied evidence that Mark Earnest, is any different to a thousand
others that we have had in here, over the years, and we will possibly
consider it.
Until such time, we will give him the benefit of the doubt, and treat
him like any other normal theist nut job, that comes in here.
Believe me sunshine, compared to some of the fruit loops, that we have
had in here, Mark Earnest, is quite unremarkable.
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Luna" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
30 Mar 2007 12:16:30 PM |
|
|
In article <kt0r5393lm463ph94aljsagga7kdds1e99@4ax.com>,
Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:58:48 GMT, Luna
<lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
Yeah, but that's not the point. It's . . . man, I'm trying really hard
not to sound all (heh) "holier than thou" here. But I think it's a
pretty major thing to figure out in life, that being cruel to someone
else changes who _you_ are. Ugh. I expected when I started reading
this group that there would be theists who'd call us heathens, tell us
we were devil worshippers or that we would go to hell, and I was ready
for it. It never occurred to me that I'd be in the position of
defending the mentally ill against mean spiritedness from other
atheists. Maybe some of us just have our hackles up, so used to being
attacked that we go on the offensive at the slightest provocation? Not
all the theists on here deserve it, some of them have been nothing but
polite (no matter how wrong they are).
I'll tell you what, kid. You come up with some verifiable, expert
supplied evidence that Mark Earnest, is any different to a thousand
others that we have had in here, over the years, and we will possibly
consider it.
Until such time, we will give him the benefit of the doubt, and treat
him like any other normal theist nut job, that comes in here.
Believe me sunshine, compared to some of the fruit loops, that we have
had in here, Mark Earnest, is quite unremarkable.
You could be right. His thing about one out of every five people you
meet being god raised a red flag for me. It was a much more specific
delusion than just "I believe there's a being up in the sky that loves
us." You talk to god, people don't lock you up. God talks back, on the
other hand . . .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 07:39:16 AM |
|
|
On 3=A4=EB28=A4=E9, =A4U=A4=C88=AE=C923=A4=C0, Luna <lunach...@NOSPAMmindsp=
ring.com> wrote:
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889oca...@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patr...@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5....@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c....@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patr...@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we =
type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is alt.athei=
sm, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real, t=
hen he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
Unfortunately a fair number of people on this board prove you don't
need a lot of common sense to be an atheist: all you have to be is
smarter than the average theist, and we all know that's not saying
much. It doesn't make anyone look like a genius when they make fun of
someone who has no clue whatsoever: it's the usenet equivalent of
attacking somebody who can't defend themselves.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 11:53:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:23:33 GMT, Luna
<lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <lunachick-C09854.08250928032007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <vo6k03tggh5lutf8uu75k4jht889ocaqe5@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5.fsf@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real, then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
--
Y'all, he's not some regular theist trying to bait us, he's actually
mentally ill. If you want to call him names and attack him for his
illness, go right ahead. I just think it's tacky. People who would
never even think of making fun of someone for being physically disabled
will nevertheless call the mentally disabled "idiot, stupid, nutcase,
etc." and I just wanted you all to know that when you do that, it
reflects badly on you. Besides, people with logic and reason on their
side don't _need_ to resort to name calling.
You have some good points, there, But...
But my descriptions are merely that: factual descriptions.
He *is* a nutcase.
He *is* stupid.
He chooses to not seek help.
At first when I engaged directly with him, I gently advised him to
seek professional help.
He refused.
It is his choice if he chooses to remain in the custard pie firing
line.
And I only call him for what he is TO OTHER POSTERS.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
28 Mar 2007 08:21:36 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On 27 Mar 2007 22:41:02 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:
- Refer: <szkodme6nn5.fsf@eris.io.com>
Luna <lunachick@NOSPAMmindspring.com> writes:
In article <szkps6vn24c.fsf@fnord.io.com>,
The Chief Instigator <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkodmfoj2p.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
snip
You can bring things into existence by saying them,
*****. Prove it.
If he really believes that, I guess it's only right to state:
Mark Earnest is a blithering idiot.
Oooh, if I say Mark Earnest has a two-foot horn growing out of his
forehead, it'll be true.
Oh my, my. The possibilities!
No kidding...and he's out turning tricks on the Vegas Strip, as we type!
I don't think y'all should be so mean to a disabled person.
If he's too stupid to pay attention to the fact that this is alt.atheism, and
we're not interested in idiots who insist their alleged god is real, then he
doesn't need to be wasting his time in Usenet, since he's obviously not
equipped to deal with reality.
He's not too stupid to pay attention to the fact that we pay attention
to him!
Obsessive nutcases like Deadly Earnest are attention-seeking whores.
Time to call in CSI:Usenet...;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Omaha 10, Houston 2 (March 24)
NEXT GAME: Friday, March 30 vs. Peoria, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 11:05:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:24:30 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
<130c1s93f3t4jc7@corp.supernews.com>:
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:amvb03ltfhejir8so1l59m6pdisibn9b8q@4ax.com...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:42:04 -0600, in alt.atheism
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote in
<130bvcmqvida379@corp.supernews.com>:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174795677.269811.107030@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Olrik" <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174795134.030282.27670@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 10:24 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
God caused, created, himself, out of nothing.
Fallacy of special pleading :
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
You've been here in a.a. for a while, you have no excuse to ignore
it.
God has a reason for being exempt: by definition God is the exception
to
many rules.
For some reason, I'm not going to take your word for it. I'll offer my
own definition of God (I have as much right to do so as you do!): God
is that which is not there
How could something not be there?
As I was going up the stair
I met a man, who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away.
Perfect illustration of the relationship between the atheist and God!
Atheists don't have relationships with gods, they don't have any
evidence that any gods exist.
By saying it is not there you have just implied its existence,
only with the addition that you attempt to deny its right to exist.
How does your logic work?
When ever we say anything, we are trying to bring something from the
state of non existence to existence.
It appears that you got your theistic metaphysics straight from the
Diskworld. I very much like _Small Gods_ but I know that it is fiction.
Which is why every time atheists use the word God, they are in a way
bringing him to life, just in a cage, to them.
That claim on your part is not only total rubbish, but I am certain that
you know it is. I had better bull sessions in college far too late in
the evening.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 01:22:16 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com>
bloodied us up with this:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174795677.269811.107030@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Mark Earnest wrote:
"Olrik" <olrik666@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174795134.030282.27670@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 10:24 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
God caused, created, himself, out of nothing.
Fallacy of special pleading :
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
You've been here in a.a. for a while, you have no excuse to
ignore it.
God has a reason for being exempt: by definition God is the
exception to many rules.
For some reason, I'm not going to take your word for it. I'll offer
my own definition of God (I have as much right to do so as you do!):
God is that which is not there
How could something not be there?
By being the suppositional claim of a logic-challenged religious idiot.
By saying it is not there you have just implied its existence,
only with the addition that you attempt to deny its right to exist.
In your dreams, which you somehow qualify as reality.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
24 Mar 2007 11:21:08 PM |
|
|
On Mar 24, 11:03 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Olrik" <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174795134.030282.27670@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 10:24 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C7FD39.22582824032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1174790099.268259.70...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims,
atheists
just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their
claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist." This, at least, indicates a level of claim on reality.
Otherwise, your position would be meaningless.
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you
say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
Not all of us say that. Only some do (like me, for instance). We're
often called "strong atheists". Nonetheless, we *all* lack belief in
the various "gods" described to us.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
If you say
there is a god, and I say I don't believe you, I'm not making a claim,
I'm rejecting yours.
You haven't shown how atheism leads to a lack of an objective
basis
for
reality.
I would argue that a lack of a source of being (God) results in
saying
that being comes from pure/absolute non-being.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is
the
source of God?
God is the ultimate source. Everything has an ultimate. That is just
the
way reality works.
If everything has to have had a cause, then doesn't God
have to have one too?
God caused, created, himself, out of nothing.
Fallacy of special pleading :
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
You've been here in a.a. for a while, you have no excuse to ignore it.
God has a reason for being exempt: by definition God is the exception to
many rules. God is the ultimate...where everything eventually winds up in
collective processes.
"god" is a concept. As such, it's everything you want it to be. Sadly,
we live in reality and there's no evidence for a "god". In fact, your
"god" over-complicates things, and it's more of a problem than a
solution.
Olrik
Olrik
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 03:02:18 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 12:03 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
God has a reason for being exempt: by definition God is the exception to
many rules.
That's where we disagree. You see, to me, if something doesn't exist
then we shouldn't believe that it does. You do recall telling us that
you believe God exists even though you know it doesn't, don't you?
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 06:32:34 AM |
|
|
On Mar 25, 5:03 am, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Olrik" <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174795134.030282.27670@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 10:24 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C7FD39.22582824032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1174790099.268259.70...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims,
atheists
just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their
claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist." This, at least, indicates a level of claim on reality.
Otherwise, your position would be meaningless.
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you
say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
Not all of us say that. Only some do (like me, for instance). We're
often called "strong atheists". Nonetheless, we *all* lack belief in
the various "gods" described to us.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
If you say
there is a god, and I say I don't believe you, I'm not making a claim,
I'm rejecting yours.
You haven't shown how atheism leads to a lack of an objective
basis
for
reality.
I would argue that a lack of a source of being (God) results in
saying
that being comes from pure/absolute non-being.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is
the
source of God?
God is the ultimate source. Everything has an ultimate. That is just
the
way reality works.
If everything has to have had a cause, then doesn't God
have to have one too?
God caused, created, himself, out of nothing.
Fallacy of special pleading :
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
You've been here in a.a. for a while, you have no excuse to ignore it.
God has a reason for being exempt: by definition God is the exception to
many rules. God is the ultimate...where everything eventually winds up in
collective processes.
That's a logical fallacy with a name. It's called special pleading. It
is a logical fallacy because it undermines the very fabric of truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism and its philosophical problems |
25 Mar 2007 08:18:22 AM |
|
|
On 25 Mar 2007 04:32:34 -0700, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist
minister" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1174822354.850041.131030@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
On Mar 25, 5:03 am, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Olrik" <olrik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174795134.030282.27670@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 24, 10:24 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Luna" <lunach...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lunachick-C7FD39.22582824032007@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1174790099.268259.70...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"StMichael" <stmichae...@gmail.com> wrote:
First, atheism doesn't make claims. Theists makes claims,
atheists
just
say theists don't have enough proof for us to believe their
claims.
Yes, actually you do make a claim. You make a truth claim: "no god/s
exist." This, at least, indicates a level of claim on reality.
Otherwise, your position would be meaningless.
If I say that your house is infected with fairies and elves, and you
say
you don't believe me, who is making a claim, me or you?
But atheists don't say they don't believe you, they say there is no God.
Not all of us say that. Only some do (like me, for instance). We're
often called "strong atheists". Nonetheless, we *all* lack belief in
the various "gods" described to us.
That is a claim. And I reject your claim.
If you say
there is a god, and I say I don't believe you, I'm not making a claim,
I'm rejecting yours.
You haven't shown how atheism leads to a lack of an objective
basis
for
reality.
I would argue that a lack of a source of being (God) results in
saying
that being comes from pure/absolute non-being.
I would say not. If you say God is the source of being, then what is
the
source of God?
God is the ultimate source. Everything has an ultimate. That is just
the
way reality works.
If everything has to have had a cause, then doesn't God
have to have one too?
God caused, created, himself, out of nothing.
Fallacy of special pleading :
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
You've been here in a.a. for a while, you have no excuse to ignore it.
God has a reason for being exempt: by definition God is the exception to
many rules. God is the ultimate...where everything eventually winds up in
collective processes.
That's a logical fallacy with a name. It's called special pleading. It
is a logical fallacy because it undermines the very fabric of truth.
Mark don't need no steenkin' truth!
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
