Religions > Atheism > Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"SongBookz" |
| Date: |
21 Nov 2006 10:36:54 PM |
| Object: |
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
Everyone has endured the accusations of the adherents of the Athiest
religion in these groups, this article is submitted for discussion purposes
since it is topical to those discussions:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061121/cm_csm/ydsouza
Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history
By Dinesh D'SouzaTue Nov 21, 3:00 AM ET
In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that religion
represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it, "the most potent
source of human conflict, past and present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades
slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought the
torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther, Christians did
bloody battle with other Christians for another three centuries."
In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends that most of
the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in the Balkans, in
Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka - show the vitality of
religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes attributed
to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular fanaticism. The
best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials.
How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually,
fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail
against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years
ago. The number sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition appears to be
about 10,000. Some historians contend that an additional 100,000 died in
jail due to malnutrition or illness.
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at
the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared with the death tolls
produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of
creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph
Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no
Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered
more than 100 million people.
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were
not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to
territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called
religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were
Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its
core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination
and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in Israel may advance
theological claims - "God gave us this land" and so forth - but the conflict
would remain essentially the same even without these religious motives.
Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern
Ireland and the Balkans.
p>Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit. Consider Mr.
Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While the motivations of
the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious," he informs us, "they are
Hindus who undoubtedly believe many improbable things about the nature of
life and death." In other words, while the Tigers see themselves as
combatants in a secular political struggle, Harris detects a religious
motive because these people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some
underlying religious craziness that explains their fanaticism.
Harris can go on forever in this vein. Seeking to exonerate secularism and
atheism from the horrors perpetrated in their name, he argues that Stalinism
and Maoism were in reality "little more than a political religion." As for
Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a
predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval
Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two
thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."
One finds the same inanities in Mr. Dawkins's work. Don't be fooled by this
rhetorical legerdemain. Dawkins and Harris cannot explain why, if Nazism was
directly descended from medieval Christianity, medieval Christianity did not
produce a Hitler. How can a self-proclaimed atheist ideology, advanced by
Hitler as a repudiation of Christianity, be a "culmination" of 2,000 years
of Christianity? Dawkins and Harris are employing a transparent sleight of
hand that holds Christianity responsible for the crimes committed in its
name, while exonerating secularism and atheism for the greater crimes
committed in their name.
Religious fanatics have done things that are impossible to defend, and some
of them, mostly in the Muslim world, are still performing horrors in the
name of their creed. But if religion sometimes disposes people to
self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that
condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of
Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the
historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
Atheist hubrisThe crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through
a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using
the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God
and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of course if some people - the
Jews, the landowners, the unfit, or the handicapped - have to be eliminated
in order to achieve this utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and
their apologists have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they
confirm the truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything
is permitted."
Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is
that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not
managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in
the past few decades.
It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief
has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not
religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
* Dinesh D'Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution. His new
book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for
9/11," will be published in January.
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor
.
|
|
| User: "Cazador" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 07:56:19 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <KoYah.10466$yE6.2676@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
You really are a vile cretin, aren't you?
Do you ever stop lying to justify your toxic infantile delusions?
I'll answer that for you:
"NO!"
Nice guys these athiests. How did you collect them all? Surely you
haven't been hanging out with the bikers over at alt.atheism?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 10:41:10 PM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2006 17:56:19 -0800, "Cazador" <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1164765379.071836.172180@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <KoYah.10466$yE6.2676@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
You really are a vile cretin, aren't you?
Do you ever stop lying to justify your toxic infantile delusions?
I'll answer that for you:
"NO!"
Nice guys these athiests. How did you collect them all? Surely you
haven't been hanging out with the bikers over at alt.atheism?
What are you raving about?
Learn to spell it first, then we can talk.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 11:22:29 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2q3qm2hml4c8an6apo753djh2puvro2d6h@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2006 17:56:19 -0800, "Cazador" <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1164765379.071836.172180@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <KoYah.10466$yE6.2676@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are
either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is
nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not
atheists,
they are antitheists.
You really are a vile cretin, aren't you?
Do you ever stop lying to justify your toxic infantile delusions?
I'll answer that for you:
"NO!"
Nice guys these athiests. How did you collect them all? Surely you
haven't been hanging out with the bikers over at alt.atheism?
What are you raving about?
Learn to spell it first, then we can talk.
Typical of those who have run out of constructive things to say - point out
"typos" and it was a typo, he spelled it correctly in all but one instance.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
29 Nov 2006 02:43:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:22:29 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <pO8bh.31278$6t.16533@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2q3qm2hml4c8an6apo753djh2puvro2d6h@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2006 17:56:19 -0800, "Cazador" <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1164765379.071836.172180@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <KoYah.10466$yE6.2676@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are
either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is
nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not
atheists,
they are antitheists.
You really are a vile cretin, aren't you?
Do you ever stop lying to justify your toxic infantile delusions?
I'll answer that for you:
"NO!"
Nice guys these athiests. How did you collect them all? Surely you
haven't been hanging out with the bikers over at alt.atheism?
What are you raving about?
Learn to spell it first, then we can talk.
Typical of those who have run out of constructive things to say - point out
"typos" and it was a typo, he spelled it correctly in all but one instance.
How very constructive that little offerring was!
"Turn the other cheek" be damned, eh?
Christian forgiveness and charity shines through!
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "yahu" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
29 Nov 2006 06:25:52 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:22:29 GMT, SongBookz wrote:
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2q3qm2hml4c8an6apo753djh2puvro2d6h@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2006 17:56:19 -0800, "Cazador" <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1164765379.071836.172180@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <KoYah.10466$yE6.2676@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are
either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is
nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not
atheists,
they are antitheists.
You really are a vile cretin, aren't you?
Do you ever stop lying to justify your toxic infantile delusions?
I'll answer that for you:
"NO!"
Nice guys these athiests. How did you collect them all? Surely you
haven't been hanging out with the bikers over at alt.atheism?
What are you raving about?
Learn to spell it first, then we can talk.
Typical of those who have run out of constructive things to say - point out
"typos" and it was a typo, he spelled it correctly in all but one instance.
Just as it is typical of those who are dissatisfied with their own lives to
attempt to make the lives of others miserable as theirs. However,not
everyone has to look to the sky to discover the fact that life is good
without gods. In fact it is very good. That you require that particular
crutch is grounds for condolences which would be tendered but it has turned
you so nasty that there is no reason to feel sympathy for you anymore. By
the way, it's also typical of people who have ran out of patience with
small children whose parents cannot control them. Small children such as
yourself, that insist in posting to other newsgroups,post that they know
are inflammatory and then complain because they got their heads slapped for
sheer stupidity. It is the fault of no atheist that you live your life in
your knees, is the fault of no atheist that make for an eternal life, sadly
because you're incapable of living this one as fully as you should.
Terrell
That Terrell, no wonder there was no point to the post.
Yahu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 12:36:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
Tell me something, Terrell. Does it hurt to be that fucking stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 02:51:05 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:5c0pm2lp4116hi3tugkqke0aqhcuhhv9b6@4ax.com...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
Tell me something, Terrell. Does it hurt to be that fucking stupid?
Don't know, does it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cazador" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 04:21:20 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
Tell me something, Terrell. Does it hurt to be that fucking stupid?
Vile, sir.
I'm doing an informal survey. Are you an atheist? If so does it trouble
you to have been named after Saint John?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 11:14:02 PM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2006 14:21:20 -0800, "Cazador" <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
Tell me something, Terrell. Does it hurt to be that fucking stupid?
Vile, sir.
I'm doing an informal survey. Are you an atheist? If so does it trouble
you to have been named after Saint John?
What makes you think everyone named John was named after Saint John -
*****-umption?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 11:35:11 PM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2006 23:14:02 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On 28 Nov 2006 14:21:20 -0800, "Cazador" <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
John Baker wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:15:54 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
Tell me something, Terrell. Does it hurt to be that fucking stupid?
<PIGGYBACKING>
Vile, sir.
He's fucking stupid. Don't like the truth? Stay the hell out of
alt.atheism.
I'm doing an informal survey. Are you an atheist? If so does it trouble
you to have been named after Saint John?
Sorry, I was named after my dad, who was named after his uncle.
Neither the old man nor Uncle John ever opened a Bible or set foot
inside a church (other than on their wedding day) in their entire
lives.
What makes you think everyone named John was named after Saint John -
*****-umption?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cazador" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 09:22:22 AM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
Vile antitheists.
BTW, yahu is an agnostic!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 09:38:29 AM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2006 07:22:22 -0800, "Cazador" <coaster132000@yahoo.com>
wrote:
SongBookz wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
What do you mean, "even if it were true"? And what are "Antitheists"
outside your paranoid fantasies?
Vile antitheists.
A standard paranoid theist slander.
BTW, yahu is an agnostic!
He's the honest kind unlike you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists |
28 Nov 2006 11:02:29 AM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
"thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:1164706876.167441.123440@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
Even if that were true, most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists,
they are antitheists.
No, we're antimorons, whose patience with idiots like you is exhausted.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history |
28 Nov 2006 03:48:15 AM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2006 01:41:16 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
What makes you think I am a believer? My point is that atheism is a
belief system as is religion.
If it is a system, name two beliefs that an atheist must accept to be
an atheist.
Heck, name one.
sniphttp://www.NewsDem
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
28 Nov 2006 09:17:44 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:od1om2lsk3t5lvqd0q7r6546b5v4elrcc9@4ax.com...
On 28 Nov 2006 01:41:16 -0800, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
Cazador skrev:
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
snip
Vile nonsense. Political ideology combined with militant atheism
motivated the killings of thousands in the Soviet Union. You are either
ignorant of the history or a person for whom it does not matter.
Since atheism is not a philosophy of any kind, your claim is nonsense.
What makes you think I am a believer? My point is that atheism is a
belief system as is religion.
If it is a system, name two beliefs that an atheist must accept to be
an atheist.
They must accept the doctrine that there "is no God or gods."
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
02 Dec 2006 10:28:47 PM |
|
|
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165102212.095347.46900@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cazador wrote:
Prejudices, perhaps, of the culture which creates the usages, but not
prejudices of the professionals whose task is to correctly reflect the
language as it exists, warts and all.
Assuming that's true, it means that the definitions you find of
"atheism" not only include anti-atheist prejudice but are supposed to.
It would still mean that in philosophical debate, you could not use the
dictionary definition of atheism until you showed it was free from
anti-atheist prejudice.
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 08:32:06 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:28:47 GMT, "SongBookz"
<NOSPAM@NOWAY.net> let us all know that:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165102212.095347.46900@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cazador wrote:
Prejudices, perhaps, of the culture which creates the usages, but not
prejudices of the professionals whose task is to correctly reflect the
language as it exists, warts and all.
Assuming that's true, it means that the definitions you find of
"atheism" not only include anti-atheist prejudice but are supposed to.
It would still mean that in philosophical debate, you could not use the
dictionary definition of atheism until you showed it was free from
anti-atheist prejudice.
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
No it isn't--like it nor not.
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: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 07:41:31 AM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165102212.095347.46900@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cazador wrote:
Prejudices, perhaps, of the culture which creates the usages, but not
prejudices of the professionals whose task is to correctly reflect the
language as it exists, warts and all.
Assuming that's true, it means that the definitions you find of
"atheism" not only include anti-atheist prejudice but are supposed to.
It would still mean that in philosophical debate, you could not use the
dictionary definition of atheism until you showed it was free from
anti-atheist prejudice.
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
Terrell
Wrong!
Definitions of religion on the Web:
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human
destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in
the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is
commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or
divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with
such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total
of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.
In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number
of forms in various cultures and individuals. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
A framework of beliefs relating to supernatural or superhuman beings or
forces that transcend the everyday material world.
www.modernhumanorigins.com/r.html
a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html
generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or
thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of
ethics, values, and belief.
www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm
Has many definitions - most of them involve the idea of supernatural agency.
www.csa.com/hottopics/religion/gloss.php
Religious affiliation, practices, and views.
www.albany.edu/sourcebook/app6.html
Oxford dictionary definition (theistic): "1 the belief in a superhuman
controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience
and worship. 2 the expression of this in worship. 3 a particular system
of faith and worship." Non-Theistic definition: "The word religion has
many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and
knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the
spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. ...
www.ecotao.com/holism/glosoz.htm
System of beliefs and practices concerned with sacred things and or
symbols uniting individuals into a single moral community.....
www.elissetche.org/dico/R.htm
any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes
certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.
www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/
A cloak used by some persons in this world who will be warm enough
without one in the next.
www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/lit/humor/TheFoolishDictionary/chap19.html
[from Latin religare to bind back, implying obligation; or from relegere
to select, distinguish among various elements for the choosing of the
best; ponder] In theosophy individual religion of conduct means faith in
his own essential divinity as a source of wisdom and an unerring and
infallible guide in conduct; an ever-growing realization of that truth,
an ever-growing consciousness of one's spiritual identity with the
divine in nature; and constant devotion to the ideals thus inspired. ...
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/red-roos.htm
an organized system of faith and worship
www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/priestly/vocab.asp
The religious denomination of the groom, bride or spouse reported on the
marriage certificate.
www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F0212XIE/2002/definitions.htm
A system of ideas and rules for behavior based on supernatural explanations.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html
(Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking,
and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: ie Where did we
come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is
my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering?, What is the
meaning of death?, How shall we live? (Ezekiel 33:10)
www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/world_religions_working_definiti.htm
beliefs and actions related to supernatural beings and forces.
www.geocities.com/brianmyhre/12Def.htm
the collective customs and traditions of a body of people that have form
an organization or an institution to pursue the study of a specific
spiritual teaching or belief.
www.exit109.com/~apg/glossary.htm
A system of thinking that recognizes a supersoul and performs some sort
of adoration of that supersoul.
www.angelfire.com/pa/ebrownle2/gloss.html
The state religion was run by paid priests and priestesses and was based
around rituals performed at elaborate ceremonies in front of temples.
State worship focussed on Roma, the goddess of Rome, other gods and,
during the Empire, deified dead emperors.
myweb.tiscali.co.uk/temetfutue/glossary/glossaryR.htm
the service and worship of God or the supernatural
www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/dictionary/MiddleEast.htm
is the service and worship of God or the supernatural or the commitment
or devotion to religious faith or observance. Religion might also be
defined as scrupulous conformity to a personal set or institutionalized
system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Finally, religion
may be a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
faith.
home.comcast.net/~ewhiteside/truth/definitions.html
Theory about aliens created all of our major religions. They also claim
that they through hybridization created Homo Sapiens, Jesus and that the
whole crucifixion is filmed on tape.
www.alien-technology.com/alien_glossary/alien_r.shtml
A man's expression of his acknowledgement of god.
www.godonthe.net/dictionary/r.html
is many following the inspiration of one enlightened person; is
following other's spiritual experience as adopted by us Spirituality is
each one seeking his own illumination. Spiritual life is one's own inner
experience.
www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/AurobindoMother/AurobindIdeas/Terminology.htm
a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on teachings of a leader;
a belief in God
homepage.mac.com/vpetrik/CnP/Glossary.htm
Supernatural beliefs involved in worship. Tends to apply to a group or
culture, religions often provide ceremonial rituals for dealing with
major life events.(birth, death, marriage)
www.geocities.com/cheshirekatz/gazebo/mythoterms.html
Find definitions of religion in: English French German Spanish all
languages
Oh BTW:
*PLONK*
--
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: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
02 Dec 2006 10:40:57 PM |
|
|
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
02 Dec 2006 10:46:24 PM |
|
|
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 08:32:33 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, "SongBookz"
<NOSPAM@NOWAY.net> let us all know that:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
Non sequitur.
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: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 09:17:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
In that case driving a truck is a religion. You are being ludicrous,
but maybe that is your intention.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 12:03:10 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonycro@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:1jq5n21fh94i3uvno71qh6ut8ucispg6m4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word
which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
In that case driving a truck is a religion. You are being ludicrous,
but maybe that is your intention.
Driving a truck isn't a "theism," all "theisms" - atheism, monotheism,
pantheism, etc., etc., etc., are religious doctrines because they are all
teachings about God/s.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 12:58:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:03:10 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonycro@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:1jq5n21fh94i3uvno71qh6ut8ucispg6m4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word
which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
In that case driving a truck is a religion. You are being ludicrous,
but maybe that is your intention.
Driving a truck isn't a "theism,"
Neither is atheism obviously.
all "theisms" - atheism, monotheism,
pantheism, etc., etc., etc., are religious doctrines because they are all
teachings about God/s.
Atheism very obviously is not a theism. It is not a teaching about
god. It is not a belief about god; it is not even a belief that there
is no god. No doubt you have been told then many times now. One
more time: I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is no god.
There may be atheists who do have that belief, just as there are some
who like to play croquet; but lack of belief in a god makes a person
an atheist. You can rant against your strawman all you want; it will
not change reality.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 08:54:27 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonycro@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:0076n2t2o88mr0gsrrvk4b7mid309gptq8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:03:10 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonycro@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:1jq5n21fh94i3uvno71qh6ut8ucispg6m4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is
the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that
and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word
which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In
fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define
the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with
you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
In that case driving a truck is a religion. You are being ludicrous,
but maybe that is your intention.
Driving a truck isn't a "theism,"
Neither is atheism obviously.
all "theisms" - atheism, monotheism,
pantheism, etc., etc., etc., are religious doctrines because they are all
teachings about God/s.
Atheism very obviously is not a theism. It is not a teaching about
god. It is not a belief about god; it is not even a belief that there
is no god. No doubt you have been told then many times now. One
more time: I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is no god.
Then by your words, you believe there is a god since you "do not believe
there is 'no god."
There are only three options:
1. To believe there is a god/s.
2. To believe there is no god/s.
3. To not know if there is or is not a god/s.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
04 Dec 2006 02:31:42 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:54:27 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonycro@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:0076n2t2o88mr0gsrrvk4b7mid309gptq8@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:03:10 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"thomas p" <tonycro@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:1jq5n21fh94i3uvno71qh6ut8ucispg6m4@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is
the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that
and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word
which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In
fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define
the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with
you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
In that case driving a truck is a religion. You are being ludicrous,
but maybe that is your intention.
Driving a truck isn't a "theism,"
Neither is atheism obviously.
all "theisms" - atheism, monotheism,
pantheism, etc., etc., etc., are religious doctrines because they are all
teachings about God/s.
Atheism very obviously is not a theism. It is not a teaching about
god. It is not a belief about god; it is not even a belief that there
is no god. No doubt you have been told then many times now. One
more time: I am an atheist. I do not believe that there is no god.
Then by your words, you believe there is a god since you "do not believe
there is 'no god."
The above is obviously nonsense.
There are only three options:
1. To believe there is a god/s.
2. To believe there is no god/s.
3. To not know if there is or is not a god/s.
If one does not know, one does not believe.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
11 Dec 2006 10:25:19 AM |
|
|
Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists
Why can't I be both?
Peter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "yahu" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 10:13:38 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, SongBookz wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
Still clutching at straws in order to get in point Terrell. I can state as
a fact that I'm an atheist and I am as irreligious as it is possible for a
human to be. But that can still help feed your fantasy, even though I am
totally indifferent to the various mythologies of humanity, the definition
includes hostility towards the mythologies. presumably that would include
yours. If, you have ever figured out exactly what it is you believe that
is.
Yahu
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 11:54:06 AM |
|
|
"yahu" <yahu@elephantineis.eg> wrote in message
news:1ajbz2qrsrkdh$.dlg@guestsite-filterset-66.112.86.14.guest.dummyhost...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, SongBookz wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word
which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
Still clutching at straws in order to get in point Terrell. I can state
as
a fact that I'm an atheist and I am as irreligious as it is possible for
a
human to be. But that can still help feed your fantasy, even though I am
totally indifferent to the various mythologies of humanity, the definition
includes hostility towards the mythologies. presumably that would include
yours. If, you have ever figured out exactly what it is you believe that
is.
It's that hostility that defines you, not as just an atheist, but as an
antitheist - the Fundamentalist branch of the atheist religion.
Terrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: most "atheists" who post in here are not atheists they are antitheists |
03 Dec 2006 01:00:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:54:06 GMT, "SongBookz" <NOSPAM@NOWAY.net>
wrote:
"yahu" <yahu@elephantineis.eg> wrote in message
news:1ajbz2qrsrkdh$.dlg@guestsite-filterset-66.112.86.14.guest.dummyhost...
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:46:24 GMT, SongBookz wrote:
"JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1165120857.450689.174670@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SongBookz wrote:
It is not even the definition of atheism that is in question, it is the
definition of religion (atheists keep trying to move away from that and
back
to their own propaganda). Atheism IS a religious doctrine (a word
which
means "teaching") - like it or not.
That's the thing, you have defined atheism so that it is a teaching.
However, when atheists describe themselves as atheists, what they mean
is that they do not have a belief in a god of any kind. How is a lack
of a belief in god a teaching?
If atheism is a religious doctrine, then not believing that there is a
blue elephant under your desk is a religious doctrine as well. In fact,
if atheism is a religious doctrine, then almost everything is a
religious doctrine. Concern for the environment or a belief in the
importance of exercise become religious doctrines by this definition.
But hey, if it makes you happy to know that it's possible to define the
word "atheism" such that it means a religious doctrine, more power to
you. I'll even help you get started -- start your definition with "a
religious doctrine that holds ...."
See? If you get define what the words mean, you win every debate. If
someone says they're a Democrat, just define "Democrat" as "an evil
person who ...".
These are all straw men -- this is not what an *atheist* means when he
uses the term "atheist". So you simply are not addressing his actual
position but the position of lexicographers who already agree with you.
The fact that atheists have agreed among themselves as to a non-standard
definition of themselves is further proof that atheism is a religion.
Still clutching at straws in order to get in point Terrell. I can state
as
a fact that I'm an atheist and I am as irreligious as it is possible for
a
human to be. But that can still help feed your fantasy, even though I am
totally indifferent to the various mythologies of humanity, the definition
includes hostility towards the mythologies. presumably that would include
yours. If, you have ever figured out exactly what it is you believe that
is.
It's that hostility that defines you, not as just an atheist, but as an
antitheist - the Fundamentalist branch of the atheist religion.
Terrell
You are a very silly person, but keep ranting nonsense if it makes you
happy.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
