| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tom P" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2005 06:07:43 PM |
| Object: |
Atheists on Atheism |
Following are the words of atheists on atheism; atheists describing their
atheism; the necessity for their atheism; the fact that atheism is the
necessary prerequisite of materialism; and the objectives of their atheist
movement.
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and posted
some of the leading atheists in world history. Incidentally, three of the
atheists I quote here became heads of governments during the 20th century,
and actually applied their atheist ideals and goals to the populations of
these modern nation states.
There are lots more where these came from. And even more in the various
"Collected Works" of these world famous atheists. Atheists were never shy
or bashful concerning their objectives. They just came right out and said
it.
I deliberately found a public source for these documents. These quotations
may be reproduced and freely distributed with the only caveat being that
credit must be given for the source, which is the Marxists Internet Archive
at http://www.marxists.org/. I quote from this site at
http://www.marxists.org/: "All material within these Archives, unless noted
otherwise, is public domain. MIA created material is protected by the
Creative Commons License." So please give credit where credit is due if you
repost or reproduce these. Thank you. Happy reading.
"Communism begins from the outset with atheism . . ." (Karl Marx, "Private
Property and Communism" in Marx: Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of
1844: Private Property and Communism." Trans. Martin Mulligan. Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1959.) Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that
are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths,
it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on
a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical
experience." Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, "The Manifesto of the
Communist Party," in Marx/Engels, "Selected Works," Volume One. Trans.:
Samuel Moore. Moscow: Progress Publishers, , pp. 98-137. Available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/
"The point is, therefore, to be more radical than everybody else as far as
atheism is concerned. Fortunately it is easy enough to be an atheist today."
And then later in the same essay: "This much is sure: the only service that
can be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of
faith and to outdo Bismarck's Kirchenkulturkampf laws by prohibiting
religion generally...." Frederick Engels. "Emigrant Literature II," 1874,
in "Marx and Engels On Religion." trans. Andy Blunden. Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1957. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/
"The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared,
is dialectical materialism, which has fully taken over the historical
traditions of eighteenth-century materialism in France and of Feuerbach
(first half of the nineteenth century) in Germany-a materialism which is
absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion." (From V. I.
Lenin, "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion." Originally
published in "Proletary," No. 45, May 13 (26), 1900. Published according to
the text in Proletary. Source: Lenin, "Collected Works." Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1973, Volume 15, pages 402-413. Available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin
"Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the
materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore,
necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic
roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the
propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific
literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly
forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party
work." V. I. Lenin' "Socialism and Religion," Novaya Zhizn, No. 28,
December 3, 1905. Signed: N. Lenin. Published according to the text in
Novaya Zhizn. Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1965,
Moscow, Volume 10, pages 83-87. Available at:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin
"Dialectical materialism is the world outlook of the Marxist-Leninist party.
It is called dialectical materialism because its approach to the phenomena
of nature, its method of studying and apprehending them, is dialectical,
while its interpretation of the phenomena of nature, its conception of these
phenomena, its theory, is materialistic." J. V. Stalin, "Dialectical and
Historical Materialism." September 1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/
"Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical
materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of
dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the
study of society and of its history." J. V. Stalin, "Dialectical and
Historical Materialism." September 1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/
"Contrary to idealism, which denies the possibility of knowing the world and
its laws, which does not believe in the authenticity of our knowledge, does
not recognize objective truth, and holds that the world is full of
'things-in-themselves' that can never be known to science, Marxist
philosophical materialism holds that the world and its laws are fully
knowable, that our knowledge of the laws of nature, tested by experiment and
practice, is authentic knowledge having the validity of objective truth, and
that there are no things in the world which are unknowable, but only things
which are as yet not known, but which will be disclosed and made known by
the efforts of science and practice." J. V. Stalin, "Dialectical and
Historical Materialism." September 1938.
Available at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/
"The history of science furnishes man with proof of the material nature of
the world and of the fact that it is governed by laws and helps man to see
the futility of the illusions of religion and idealism and to arrive at
materialist conclusions." Mao Zedong, "Dialectical materialism-notes of
lectures"as published in K'ang-chan ta-hsueh, nos. 6 to 8, April to June
1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/.
"Marx, Engels and Lenin all explained materialist dialectics as the theory
of development." Mao Zedong, "Dialectical materialism-notes of lectures"as
published in K'ang-chan ta-hsueh, nos. 6 to 8, April to June 1938.
Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/.
"Dialectical materialism's theory of movement is in opposition first of all
with philosophical idealism and with the theological concepts of religion.
The fundamental nature of all philosophical idealism and religious theology
derives from their denial of the unity and material nature of the world; and
in imagining that the movement and development of the world takes place
apart from matter, or took place at least in the beginning apart from
matter, and is the result of the action of spirit, God, or divine forces."
Mao Zedong, "Dialectical materialism-notes of lectures"as published in
K'ang-chan ta-hsueh, nos. 6 to 8, April to June 1938. Available at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/.
.
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
24 Jul 2005 05:58:00 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d7mod1tn7phal1mvis21jv5870hlcak939@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
wrote:
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote
in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and
posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing
their
atheism in their own words. Why? What exactly bothers you?
Is it the fact that these men I quoted were atheists?
Are you ashamed to share your atheistic beliefs with Marx, Engels,
Lenin,
Stalin, and Mao?
What "Atheistic beliefs", liar?
That no gods exist.
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Says who? You? Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and what is not
atheism?
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
Karl Marx, an atheist, disagrees with you. So do some other atheists. And
they have published some rather learned papers. Have you?
Atheism is based upon the notion that no theist has
shown that there is a god.
First, if God exists, God exists whether or not any theist can "show" such a
God exists.
Second, what evidence could possibly suffice for you?
Third, that may be your notion of atheism, but that doesn't make that notion
the correct notion. It merely means that it is your very own favorite
notion of atheism. It is not Fueurbach's, Marx's, Engels', Lenin's,
Stalin's and lots more atheists I can quote.
Why should anyone presume your opinion of atheism is the orthodox or correct
view of atheism?
Exactly what are your credentials to presume to speak for all atheists and
attempt to correct atheists who are far more erudite and likely more
educated than you are?
Why do you presume your definition of atheism is correct? Marx was
exceedingly well educated in history, jurisprudence, and philosophy. What
makes you think you know more about atheists and atheism that Marx did?
That atheism is
more rational than theism.
That's simply an extension of the above.
Karl Marx, an atheist, disagrees with your assessment.
Let's inventory the problem here for a moment. Those words above may be
your opinion, and you are the world's leading expert on your opinion, as
the
saying goes. But I don't think you have any grasp at all of atheists and
atheism throughout history. Obviously. But Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin,
and Mao were also atheists.
No, they weren't. They deified the state.
You are still mistaken. The final stage of the materialist dialectic is
communism, and one of the preconditions for communism is the withering away
of the state. Quote Marx, Engels, Lenin, or any other Marxist that claims
the state is deified. Bet you can't.
You'd know that if you knew thing-one about communism.
I know the what final stage of dialectical materialism is. You don't.
Obviously. I know that communism begins with atheism. You didn't know that
either. I know that communism is an economic system based upon materialism.
You didn't. Shall I go on?
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Delia" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
24 Jul 2005 09:38:44 PM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d7mod1tn7phal1mvis21jv5870hlcak939@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
wrote:
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote
in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and
posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing
their
atheism in their own words. Why? What exactly bothers you?
Is it the fact that these men I quoted were atheists?
Are you ashamed to share your atheistic beliefs with Marx, Engels,
Lenin,
Stalin, and Mao?
What "Atheistic beliefs", liar?
That no gods exist.
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Says who? You? Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and what is not
atheism?
That's extremely hypocritical, especially since you appointed yourself
the arbitrator of what is atheism by asserting that it's a belief system
centered around "that no gods exist". You were wrong, and you have a
very hard time either realizing it or admitting it.
WMD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
25 Jul 2005 12:11:24 PM |
|
|
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d7mod1tn7phal1mvis21jv5870hlcak939@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
wrote:
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote
in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and
posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing
their
atheism in their own words. Why? What exactly bothers you?
Is it the fact that these men I quoted were atheists?
Are you ashamed to share your atheistic beliefs with Marx, Engels,
Lenin,
Stalin, and Mao?
What "Atheistic beliefs", liar?
That no gods exist.
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Says who? You? Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and what is
not
atheism?
That's extremely hypocritical, especially since you appointed yourself
the arbitrator of what is atheism by asserting that it's a belief system
centered around "that no gods exist". You were wrong, and you have a
very hard time either realizing it or admitting it.
WMD
You are again mistaken. I merely quoted the opinions of other atheists who
disagree with your version of what is and what is not orthodox atheism.
Your argument is with your fellow atheists. And the last word is yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
25 Jul 2005 06:06:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:11:24 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
in news message <42e519be$0$11077$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
wrote:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
[-----]
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Says who? You? Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and what is
not
atheism?
That's extremely hypocritical, especially since you appointed yourself
the arbitrator of what is atheism by asserting that it's a belief system
centered around "that no gods exist". You were wrong, and you have a
very hard time either realizing it or admitting it.
You are again mistaken. I merely quoted the opinions of other atheists who
disagree with your version of what is and what is not orthodox atheism.
Your argument is with your fellow atheists. And the last word is yours.
Damn it, Tom. You've given "the last word" to so many atheists that
duels are necessary to see who gets the honor. If you are going to
cut and run, you don't need to announce it a dozen times.
Okay, everyone in this thread who was promised "the last word" belly
up to the table. One hand, Texas Hold'em. Winner takes "the last
word". I'll deal.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with
a passionate need for external authority and guidance,
pretending not to trust their own judgement. - Alan Watts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 10:13:45 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:0mrae1hbt4pk4edhgee62cphh558t22hmp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:11:24 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
in news message <42e519be$0$11077$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
wrote:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
[-----]
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Says who? You? Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and what
is
not
atheism?
That's extremely hypocritical, especially since you appointed yourself
the arbitrator of what is atheism by asserting that it's a belief
system
centered around "that no gods exist". You were wrong, and you have a
very hard time either realizing it or admitting it.
You are again mistaken. I merely quoted the opinions of other atheists
who
disagree with your version of what is and what is not orthodox atheism.
Your argument is with your fellow atheists. And the last word is yours.
Damn it, Tom. You've given "the last word" to so many atheists that
duels are necessary to see who gets the honor. If you are going to
cut and run, you don't need to announce it a dozen times.
Many of my atheist correspondents disagree with my posts. That's OK. I did
not expect to convert anyone from atheism to anything else when I posted the
quotes that began the thread. I have agreed to disagree with certain of
your fellow atheists. What else need be written?
Okay, everyone in this thread who was promised "the last word" belly
up to the table. One hand, Texas Hold'em. Winner takes "the last
word". I'll deal.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with
a passionate need for external authority and guidance,
pretending not to trust their own judgement. - Alan Watts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
27 Jul 2005 05:34:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:13:45 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
in news message <42e64fa6$0$11027$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:0mrae1hbt4pk4edhgee62cphh558t22hmp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:11:24 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
in news message <42e519be$0$11077$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
wrote:
[-----]
Your argument is with your fellow atheists. And the last word is yours.
Damn it, Tom. You've given "the last word" to so many atheists that
duels are necessary to see who gets the honor. If you are going to
cut and run, you don't need to announce it a dozen times.
Many of my atheist correspondents disagree with my posts. That's OK. I did
not expect to convert anyone from atheism to anything else when I posted the
quotes that began the thread. I have agreed to disagree with certain of
your fellow atheists. What else need be written?
But that doesn't answer the question of who gets "the last word"!
Liz #658 BAAWA
The unsophisticated frequently miss the joke.
-- Therion T. Ware
The unsophisticated frequently ARE the joke.
-- Fritz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
27 Jul 2005 12:46:13 PM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:9goee11o3cgmmd5t4s1d9j1dhf96hflu6m@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:13:45 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
in news message <42e64fa6$0$11027$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:0mrae1hbt4pk4edhgee62cphh558t22hmp@4ax.com...
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:11:24 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
in news message <42e519be$0$11077$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
wrote:
[-----]
Your argument is with your fellow atheists. And the last word is
yours.
Damn it, Tom. You've given "the last word" to so many atheists that
duels are necessary to see who gets the honor. If you are going to
cut and run, you don't need to announce it a dozen times.
Many of my atheist correspondents disagree with my posts. That's OK. I
did
not expect to convert anyone from atheism to anything else when I posted
the
quotes that began the thread. I have agreed to disagree with certain of
your fellow atheists. What else need be written?
But that doesn't answer the question of who gets "the last word"!
Practice democracy. Vote for an atheist representative to post the last
word. Or anything else you choose.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The unsophisticated frequently miss the joke.
-- Therion T. Ware
The unsophisticated frequently ARE the joke.
-- Fritz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
25 Jul 2005 05:55:43 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:38:44 GMT, Wayne Delia <wmd@deliafamily.net> in
news message <UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09> wrote:
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
[----]
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Says who? You? Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and what is not
atheism?
That's extremely hypocritical, especially since you appointed yourself
the arbitrator of what is atheism by asserting that it's a belief system
centered around "that no gods exist". You were wrong, and you have a
very hard time either realizing it or admitting it.
Tom P has decreed that he and he alone has the right to determine who
may or may not express an opinion on atheism, and he, Tom P, has
chosen Karl Marx as the official spokesperson.
Exhibit 1: Message-ID:
<42e41ff7$0$11075$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
" Karl Marx is a stupid straw man? As a spokesperson for atheism he puts you
to utter shame."
"Karl Marx, atheist, economic theorist, philosopher, historian,
revolutionary, and one of the more original and brilliant thinkers of the
19th century, disagrees with your inane one liners and baseless rubbish,
disagrees as well as with your grossly oversimplified and juvenile approach
to atheism."
And how dare we disagree with his choice? I mean if Tom P says that
Karl Mark is the official spokesperson of atheism, who are we are mere
atheists to disagree with him? LintŪ forbid that atheists should be
able to choose their own position! Tom P's loyalty to Karl Marx, even
in the face of universal opposition, is exemplary (1). I believe that
Tom P would even go to the cross (a) proclaiming his choices are
correct, and that atheists are deluded when they say that atheism is
the lack of belief in gods -- (a) if he were Christian, of course,
which he is not.
(1) Exemplary of a brain-dead egomaniacal fanatic, that is.
(and yes, I realize that is an oxymoron) :)
Liz #658 BAAWA
Reality doesn't alter itself to conform to our beliefs. --
Gregory A. Greenman
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
25 Jul 2005 11:10:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:55:43 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:38:44 GMT, Wayne Delia <wmd@deliafamily.net> in
news message <UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09> wrote:
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
snip
Tom P has decreed that he and he alone has the right to determine who
may or may not express an opinion on atheism, and he, Tom P, has
chosen Karl Marx as the official spokesperson.
He is going to have a hell of a time getting Karl to make public
appearances.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 05:25:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:10:36 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in news message
<1ql9e1d7slf1p0tbj8h0aus6vljv643qhh@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:55:43 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:38:44 GMT, Wayne Delia <wmd@deliafamily.net> in
news message <UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09> wrote:
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
snip
Tom P has decreed that he and he alone has the right to determine who
may or may not express an opinion on atheism, and he, Tom P, has
chosen Karl Marx as the official spokesperson.
He is going to have a hell of a time getting Karl to make public
appearances.
I think Tom is trying to channel him:
"Karl, Karl, can you hear me?"
"Rap once for no, twice for yes."
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 03:40:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:25:56 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:10:36 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> in news message
<1ql9e1d7slf1p0tbj8h0aus6vljv643qhh@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:55:43 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:38:44 GMT, Wayne Delia <wmd@deliafamily.net> in
news message <UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09> wrote:
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
snip
Tom P has decreed that he and he alone has the right to determine who
may or may not express an opinion on atheism, and he, Tom P, has
chosen Karl Marx as the official spokesperson.
He is going to have a hell of a time getting Karl to make public
appearances.
I think Tom is trying to channel him:
"Karl, Karl, can you hear me?"
"Rap once for no, twice for yes."
Ask him what he thinks about Tony Blair.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
27 Jul 2005 06:05:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:10:36 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:55:43 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:38:44 GMT, Wayne Delia <wmd@deliafamily.net> in
news message <UgYEe.604$x32.491@trndny09> wrote:
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
snip
Tom P has decreed that he and he alone has the right to determine who
may or may not express an opinion on atheism, and he, Tom P, has
chosen Karl Marx as the official spokesperson.
He is going to have a hell of a time getting Karl to make public
appearances.
Karl Rove.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
25 Jul 2005 12:18:02 AM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:d7mod1tn7phal1mvis21jv5870hlcak939@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:59:22 -0500, "Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com>
wrote:
"Niels van der Linden" <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote
in
message news:dbhevl$t18$1@netlx020.civ.utwente.nl...
I just thought that atheists wouldn't mind at all if I quoted and
posted
some of the leading atheists in world history.
Nice projection, theist.
So you do object if someone posts the words of atheists describing
their
atheism in their own words. Why? What exactly bothers you?
Is it the fact that these men I quoted were atheists?
Are you ashamed to share your atheistic beliefs with Marx, Engels,
Lenin,
Stalin, and Mao?
What "Atheistic beliefs", liar?
That no gods exist.
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god
or gods.
Says who? You? Who appointed you the arbitrator of what is and what is not
atheism?
The English language.
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
Karl Marx, an atheist, disagrees with you. So do some other atheists. And
they have published some rather learned papers. Have you?
Irrelevant. Karl Marx spoke for only one person: Karl Marx.
Atheism is based upon the notion that no theist has
shown that there is a god.
First, if God exists, God exists whether or not any theist can "show" such a
God exists.
That's a pretty big "if."
Second, what evidence could possibly suffice for you?
"I exist."
I want this written, in the person's native language, in red welts on
the bellies of every human being on the planet simultaneously and for
these welts to vanish after exactly one week.
Third, that may be your notion of atheism, but that doesn't make that notion
the correct notion. It merely means that it is your very own favorite
notion of atheism. It is not Fueurbach's, Marx's, Engels', Lenin's,
Stalin's and lots more atheists I can quote.
Nor are Fueuerbach's, Marx's, Engels', Lenin's, or Stalin's notions of
atheism the correct notions.
Why should anyone presume your opinion of atheism is the orthodox or correct
view of atheism?
The language. A- meaning "lack of." A-theism, lack of theism.
Exactly what are your credentials to presume to speak for all atheists and
attempt to correct atheists who are far more erudite and likely more
educated than you are?
The English language, and possibly Latin as well.
Why do you presume your definition of atheism is correct? Marx was
exceedingly well educated in history, jurisprudence, and philosophy. What
makes you think you know more about atheists and atheism that Marx did?
"Appeal to Authority" is a logical fallacy.
Marx was wrong. He may have been an atheist, but he was wrong. Atheism
is simply the lack of theism. However, (cliche alert!) man cannot live
on bread alone, so atheists have more than just a lack of theism. Marx,
for example, had a religion known as Marxism.
That atheism is
more rational than theism.
That's simply an extension of the above.
Karl Marx, an atheist, disagrees with your assessment.
Don Kresh, an atheist, disagrees with your assesment.
Let's inventory the problem here for a moment. Those words above may be
your opinion, and you are the world's leading expert on your opinion, as
the
saying goes. But I don't think you have any grasp at all of atheists and
atheism throughout history. Obviously. But Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin,
and Mao were also atheists.
No, they weren't. They deified the state.
You are still mistaken. The final stage of the materialist dialectic is
communism, and one of the preconditions for communism is the withering away
of the state. Quote Marx, Engels, Lenin, or any other Marxist that claims
the state is deified. Bet you can't.
Irrelevant. Marxism is a religion unto itself.
You'd know that if you knew thing-one about communism.
I know the what final stage of dialectical materialism is. You don't.
Obviously. I know that communism begins with atheism. You didn't know that
either. I know that communism is an economic system based upon materialism.
You didn't. Shall I go on?
I know that bombs begin with fertilizer. You don't. I know that
Crystal Meth begins with Sudafed. You don't.
Shall I go on?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Delia" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
24 Jul 2005 09:42:31 PM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism, or an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do with it.
Karl Marx, an atheist, disagrees with you. So do some other atheists. And
they have published some rather learned papers. Have you?
Karl Marx is wrong, then, about what atheism entails. "But Karl Marx
says you're supposed to believe something else" simply doesn't cut it.
And since you opened the door, I'm pleased to say that yes, I have
published some learned papers, in particular, U.S. Patent #6,915,333,
issued July 5, 2005. Does that add any significance or authority to my
claim that all atheists necessarily believe that the Boston Red Sox will
repeat as World Champions this year? (See if you can use that example to
figure out why "Argument from Authority" is a logical fallacy.)
WMD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
25 Jul 2005 12:30:36 PM |
|
|
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:rkYEe.1150$S72.290@trndny06...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism, or an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do with it.
What method do you use to demonstrate the absence of gods?
Marx, who was assuredly an atheist, stated that atheism is the negation of
God.
Karl Marx, an atheist, disagrees with you. So do some other atheists.
And
they have published some rather learned papers. Have you?
Karl Marx is wrong, then, about what atheism entails. "But Karl Marx
says you're supposed to believe something else" simply doesn't cut it.
But because Wayne Delia says that Marx is wrong and Wayne Delia says you are
supposed to believe something else doesn't cut it either.
Are we to presume that since you so freely indicate that Marx was wrong that
you have actually read Marx, especially Marx's books that address atheism,
materialism, and theism? And also that you have read Ludwig Feuerbach on
religion and atheism? Or is Feuerbach also mistaken, in your opinion? And
Engels too is mistaken, right?
Or is Wayne Delia passing judgment on works he has never read and theories
he is unfamiliar with?
And since you opened the door, I'm pleased to say that yes, I have
published some learned papers, in particular, U.S. Patent #6,915,333,
issued July 5, 2005.
Now isn't that special? Does your patent address the nature and sources of
atheism in some fashion? One rather doubts that, but one felt compelled to
ask.
Does that add any significance or authority to my
claim that all atheists necessarily believe that the Boston Red Sox will
repeat as World Champions this year? (See if you can use that example to
figure out why "Argument from Authority" is a logical fallacy.)
Not so much as a tiniest shred. Go Sox. "Ya gotta believe" was the battle
cry wasn't it? Not a terribly rational or logical method with which to
attempt to affect the outcome of an athletic contest in my opinion.
And the last word is yours.
WMD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
25 Jul 2005 01:05:27 PM |
|
|
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:rkYEe.1150$S72.290@trndny06...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism, or an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do with it.
What method do you use to demonstrate the absence of gods?
In response to scientific challenges, theology has made God, conceived
of as a divine person, invulnerable to scientific disproof by placing
God outside nature.
In like manner, theology has made God invulnerable to rational
disproof by placing God outside reason.
So "demonstrations" are not to be had, either way.
But whatever is the case, God is a symbol. What God symbolizes for a
person, becomes important, and the "existence" of God as some sort of
divine person, becomes unimportant. I think God would agree with this.
What does God symbolize, for you?
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 10:22:59 AM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:658ae1dptprj151ouftoj5q74hsuktf200@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:rkYEe.1150$S72.290@trndny06...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism, or an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do with
it.
What method do you use to demonstrate the absence of gods?
In response to scientific challenges, theology has made God, conceived
of as a divine person, invulnerable to scientific disproof by placing
God outside nature.
I rather think you have the process precisely inverted with respect to time.
May I humbly submit that gods are older, far older than science and
scientific method?
In like manner, theology has made God invulnerable to rational
disproof by placing God outside reason.
My initial reaction is to disagree, because Aquinas and Maimonides seem to
me to place God at the center of reason. But it has been a long time since
I read them, so I could be mistaken.
So "demonstrations" are not to be had, either way.
I think I agree with that assessment. That is why it is called faith.
But whatever is the case, God is a symbol. What God symbolizes for a
person, becomes important, and the "existence" of God as some sort of
divine person, becomes unimportant. I think God would agree with this.
I think you are on the right track here.
What does God symbolize, for you?
Justice, righteousness, ideals to be aspired to, a sublime consciousness,
the source of a program to be lived. And you?
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 10:30:51 AM |
|
|
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:658ae1dptprj151ouftoj5q74hsuktf200@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:rkYEe.1150$S72.290@trndny06...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism, or an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do with
it.
What method do you use to demonstrate the absence of gods?
In response to scientific challenges, theology has made God, conceived
of as a divine person, invulnerable to scientific disproof by placing
God outside nature.
I rather think you have the process precisely inverted with respect to time.
May I humbly submit that gods are older, far older than science and
scientific method?
Yes, of course. You may submit anything that does not make them
vulnerable to scientific disproof.
In like manner, theology has made God invulnerable to rational
disproof by placing God outside reason.
My initial reaction is to disagree, because Aquinas and Maimonides seem to
me to place God at the center of reason. But it has been a long time since
I read them, so I could be mistaken.
If their positions had rational merit, we would not be having this
discussion.
So "demonstrations" are not to be had, either way.
I think I agree with that assessment. That is why it is called faith.
Yes. And faith would be an empty notion, if rational demonstration had
been achieved.
But whatever is the case, God is a symbol. What God symbolizes for a
person, becomes important, and the "existence" of God as some sort of
divine person, becomes unimportant. I think God would agree with this.
I think you are on the right track here.
What does God symbolize, for you?
Justice, righteousness, ideals to be aspired to, a sublime consciousness,
the source of a program to be lived. And you?
As principles, or perhaps repository of principles. These principles
have to do with honoring the mystery and holiness of life, the
continuous striving to find and then live up to highest values, the
fact of personal responsibility for doing so, and forgiveness of our
own and other's inability to fully live up to those principles. In a
way, God is a symbol of the epic saga that is existence and life
itself.
This is pretty much a wordy version of what you said.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 01:00:59 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:klkce1h5707m3l4r9njb7b2gc7t7m9gl2f@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:658ae1dptprj151ouftoj5q74hsuktf200@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:rkYEe.1150$S72.290@trndny06...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism, or
an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do
with
it.
What method do you use to demonstrate the absence of gods?
In response to scientific challenges, theology has made God, conceived
of as a divine person, invulnerable to scientific disproof by placing
God outside nature.
I rather think you have the process precisely inverted with respect to
time.
May I humbly submit that gods are older, far older than science and
scientific method?
Yes, of course. You may submit anything that does not make them
vulnerable to scientific disproof.
How could one use science to prove the age of science? Or the age of gods?
It seems to me that those are historical problems which are not by nature
discoverable or solvable by scientific method. And historically, science is
a modern phenomena, by which I mean that the body of method and
instrumentation was developed or discovered during the modern historical
era, which is pick a date in the mid-fifteenth century to the present. God
and deities are far older.
In like manner, theology has made God invulnerable to rational
disproof by placing God outside reason.
My initial reaction is to disagree, because Aquinas and Maimonides seem
to
me to place God at the center of reason. But it has been a long time
since
I read them, so I could be mistaken.
If their positions had rational merit, we would not be having this
discussion.
I think you overstate the nature of rational merit. Their arguments are
eminently rational, I think. Are you familiar with the "26 Propositions"
Maimonides began his "Propositions of the Philosophers" with? (pages 145-149
of my copy of "Guide For The Perplexed," trans. M. Frielander, New York:
Dover Pubs., 1956) This essay is eminently rational. It is not scientific
by modern standards.
But you do have a point. That point, as I interpret your words, is that if
God could or could not be proven by science, there would be no doubt, thus
no need for faith. That is true, I think.
So "demonstrations" are not to be had, either way.
I think I agree with that assessment. That is why it is called faith.
Yes. And faith would be an empty notion, if rational demonstration had
been achieved.
Absolutely correct, presuming that rational and scientific proof were
precisely the same. While all scientific proofs are by definition rational,
not all rational proofs are scientific.
But whatever is the case, God is a symbol. What God symbolizes for a
person, becomes important, and the "existence" of God as some sort of
divine person, becomes unimportant. I think God would agree with this.
I think you are on the right track here.
What does God symbolize, for you?
Justice, righteousness, ideals to be aspired to, a sublime consciousness,
the source of a program to be lived. And you?
As principles, or perhaps repository of principles. These principles
have to do with honoring the mystery and holiness of life, the
continuous striving to find and then live up to highest values, the
fact of personal responsibility for doing so, and forgiveness of our
own and other's inability to fully live up to those principles. In a
way, God is a symbol of the epic saga that is existence and life
itself.
This is pretty much a wordy version of what you said.
Jim07D5
I agree. And your words were not excessive at all, but rather excellent, in
my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 03:47:31 PM |
|
|
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:klkce1h5707m3l4r9njb7b2gc7t7m9gl2f@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:658ae1dptprj151ouftoj5q74hsuktf200@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:rkYEe.1150$S72.290@trndny06...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism, or
an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do
with
it.
What method do you use to demonstrate the absence of gods?
In response to scientific challenges, theology has made God, conceived
of as a divine person, invulnerable to scientific disproof by placing
God outside nature.
I rather think you have the process precisely inverted with respect to
time.
May I humbly submit that gods are older, far older than science and
scientific method?
Yes, of course. You may submit anything that does not make them
vulnerable to scientific disproof.
How could one use science to prove the age of science? Or the age of gods?
It seems to me that those are historical problems which are not by nature
discoverable or solvable by scientific method. And historically, science is
a modern phenomena, by which I mean that the body of method and
instrumentation was developed or discovered during the modern historical
era, which is pick a date in the mid-fifteenth century to the present. God
and deities are far older.
You are obviously quite astute, at least, I say that based on the
evidence I see. ;-)
I would only point out that I didn't suggest using science to prove
the "age of science" or of gods. At the least, science can't "prove"
itself since it has axiomatic commitments, such as uniformitarianism.
And it doesn't "see" gods, any more than radar sees mercy.
I would agree that the idea of god and deities predates "modern
science" but does not predate science in general. In fact, I suggest
that the idea of gods was originally a scientific idea. "I can cause a
deer to die by throwing a rock down at him from a cliff. What caused
the avalanche that killed my 15 tribe mates? A powerful, invisible
being." That's an early scientific, even rational, idea.
In like manner, theology has made God invulnerable to rational
disproof by placing God outside reason.
My initial reaction is to disagree, because Aquinas and Maimonides seem
to
me to place God at the center of reason. But it has been a long time
since
I read them, so I could be mistaken.
If their positions had rational merit, we would not be having this
discussion.
I think you overstate the nature of rational merit. Their arguments are
eminently rational, I think. Are you familiar with the "26 Propositions"
Maimonides began his "Propositions of the Philosophers" with? (pages 145-149
of my copy of "Guide For The Perplexed," trans. M. Frielander, New York:
Dover Pubs., 1956) This essay is eminently rational. It is not scientific
by modern standards.
I've read it. We only disagree in that the definition of science you
have in mind is narrower than what I should have stated.
But you do have a point. That point, as I interpret your words, is that if
God could or could not be proven by science, there would be no doubt, thus
no need for faith. That is true, I think.
Yes, that was my point. I see the commitment that is necessary to the
ideas we have both expressed below -- marked by *** -- to require what
is called faith.
So, WRT "Atheists on Atheism" well, it is a complex subject. I am not
sure that atheists on atheism are any more self aware, than theists on
theism. But on balance I think they are -- the atheists, that is,
because more of them have been theists, I guess, than there are
theists who have been atheists. I count myself as a non-theist. I
suppose I should count myself as a non-atheist, as well, but I am also
non-agnostic. I believe there is no *person* named "God".
So "demonstrations" are not to be had, either way.
I think I agree with that assessment. That is why it is called faith.
Yes. And faith would be an empty notion, if rational demonstration had
been achieved.
Absolutely correct, presuming that rational and scientific proof were
precisely the same. While all scientific proofs are by definition rational,
not all rational proofs are scientific.
True. I thought I had made that distinction in my first post on this
subthread.
But whatever is the case, God is a symbol. What God symbolizes for a
person, becomes important, and the "existence" of God as some sort of
divine person, becomes unimportant. I think God would agree with this.
I think you are on the right track here.
What does God symbolize, for you?
***
Justice, righteousness, ideals to be aspired to, a sublime consciousness,
the source of a program to be lived. And you?
***
As principles, or perhaps repository of principles. These principles
have to do with honoring the mystery and holiness of life, the
continuous striving to find and then live up to highest values, the
fact of personal responsibility for doing so, and forgiveness of our
own and other's inability to fully live up to those principles. In a
way, God is a symbol of the epic saga that is existence and life
itself.
This is pretty much a wordy version of what you said.
Jim07D5
I agree. And your words were not excessive at all, but rather excellent, in
my opinion.
Thanks.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
27 Jul 2005 06:20:57 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:577de15ntpuooh23sv8fak8qjhvaa5qcna@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:klkce1h5707m3l4r9njb7b2gc7t7m9gl2f@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:658ae1dptprj151ouftoj5q74hsuktf200@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
"Wayne Delia" <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote in message
news:rkYEe.1150$S72.290@trndny06...
Tom P wrote:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:bvi2e11tuatl6de9aei3oue5g6m3gkco86@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:25:14 -0500, "Tom P"
<t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> let us all know that:
That atheism is based upon science.
Wrong.
By definition, that's correct: atheism is an absence of theism,
or
an
absence of belief in gods of any kind. Science has nothing to do
with
it.
What method do you use to demonstrate the absence of gods?
In response to scientific challenges, theology has made God,
conceived
of as a divine person, invulnerable to scientific disproof by
placing
God outside nature.
I rather think you have the process precisely inverted with respect to
time.
May I humbly submit that gods are older, far older than science and
scientific method?
Yes, of course. You may submit anything that does not make them
vulnerable to scientific disproof.
How could one use science to prove the age of science? Or the age of
gods?
It seems to me that those are historical problems which are not by nature
discoverable or solvable by scientific method. And historically, science
is
a modern phenomena, by which I mean that the body of method and
instrumentation was developed or discovered during the modern historical
era, which is pick a date in the mid-fifteenth century to the present.
God
and deities are far older.
You are obviously quite astute, at least, I say that based on the
evidence I see. ;-)
Lucky once in awhile. But thank you.
I would only point out that I didn't suggest using science to prove
the "age of science" or of gods. At the least, science can't "prove"
itself since it has axiomatic commitments, such as uniformitarianism.
And it doesn't "see" gods, any more than radar sees mercy.
Good points. I misread or misanswered your words.
I would agree that the idea of god and deities predates "modern
science" but does not predate science in general. In fact, I suggest
that the idea of gods was originally a scientific idea. "I can cause a
deer to die by throwing a rock down at him from a cliff. What caused
the avalanche that killed my 15 tribe mates? A powerful, invisible
being." That's an early scientific, even rational, idea.
OK, I can accept that.
In like manner, theology has made God invulnerable to rational
disproof by placing God outside reason.
My initial reaction is to disagree, because Aquinas and Maimonides
seem
to
me to place God at the center of reason. But it has been a long time
since
I read them, so I could be mistaken.
If their positions had rational merit, we would not be having this
discussion.
I think you overstate the nature of rational merit. Their arguments are
eminently rational, I think. Are you familiar with the "26 Propositions"
Maimonides began his "Propositions of the Philosophers" with? (pages
145-149
of my copy of "Guide For The Perplexed," trans. M. Frielander, New York:
Dover Pubs., 1956) This essay is eminently rational. It is not
scientific
by modern standards.
I've read it. We only disagree in that the definition of science you
have in mind is narrower than what I should have stated.
I think so.
But you do have a point. That point, as I interpret your words, is that
if
God could or could not be proven by science, there would be no doubt,
thus
no need for faith. That is true, I think.
Yes, that was my point. I see the commitment that is necessary to the
ideas we have both expressed below -- marked by *** -- to require what
is called faith.
So, WRT "Atheists on Atheism" well, it is a complex subject. I am not
sure that atheists on atheism are any more self aware, than theists on
theism. But on balance I think they are -- the atheists, that is,
because more of them have been theists, I guess, than there are
theists who have been atheists. I count myself as a non-theist. I
suppose I should count myself as a non-atheist, as well, but I am also
non-agnostic. I believe there is no *person* named "God".
I think atheism here is oversimplified to the point where the expression is
meaningless. If atheism is simply a statement solely concerning an
"unbelief" or "non-belief" in gods equivalent to an adult not believing in
the magical powers of Santa Claus, then why the bitter arguments and highly
personalized exchanges of insults? To me it is obvious that atheism is as
fiercely held and diligently defended a proposition as any religious belief
I know of. (Which is not to say atheism is a religion.) And I also think
atheism has ramifications far more consequential than mere disbelief in the
Easter Bunny.
Joseph Campbell also made the distinction between a personal God and God.
Sometimes I want to agree with Calvin that God is not knowable by the human
intellect, but I have such an abhorrence to Calvinism that I cannot accept
even the simplest and most obvious of his axioms with extreme effort.
So "demonstrations" are not to be had, either way.
I think I agree with that assessment. That is why it is called faith.
Yes. And faith would be an empty notion, if rational demonstration had
been achieved.
Absolutely correct, presuming that rational and scientific proof were
precisely the same. While all scientific proofs are by definition
rational,
not all rational proofs are scientific.
True. I thought I had made that distinction in my first post on this
subthread.
I doubtless missed it.
But whatever is the case, God is a symbol. What God symbolizes for a
person, becomes important, and the "existence" of God as some sort
of
divine person, becomes unimportant. I think God would agree with
this.
I think you are on the right track here.
What does God symbolize, for you?
***
Justice, righteousness, ideals to be aspired to, a sublime
consciousness,
the source of a program to be lived. And you?
***
As principles, or perhaps repository of principles. These principles
have to do with honoring the mystery and holiness of life, the
continuous striving to find and then live up to highest values, the
fact of personal responsibility for doing so, and forgiveness of our
own and other's inability to fully live up to those principles. In a
way, God is a symbol of the epic saga that is existence and life
itself.
This is pretty much a wordy version of what you said.
Jim07D5
I agree. And your words were not excessive at all, but rather excellent,
in
my opinion.
Thanks.
Welcome
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
27 Jul 2005 07:50:21 PM |
|
|
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
<...>
So, WRT "Atheists on Atheism" well, it is a complex subject. I am not
sure that atheists on atheism are any more self aware, than theists on
theism. But on balance I think they are -- the atheists, that is,
because more of them have been theists, I guess, than there are
theists who have been atheists. I count myself as a non-theist. I
suppose I should count myself as a non-atheist, as well, but I am also
non-agnostic. I believe there is no *person* named "God".
I think atheism here is oversimplified to the point where the expression is
meaningless. If atheism is simply a statement solely concerning an
"unbelief" or "non-belief" in gods equivalent to an adult not believing in
the magical powers of Santa Claus, then why the bitter arguments and highly
personalized exchanges of insults?
Because, well, see my next comment.
To me it is obvious that atheism is as
fiercely held and diligently defended a proposition as any religious belief
I know of. (Which is not to say atheism is a religion.) And I also think
atheism has ramifications far more consequential than mere disbelief in the
Easter Bunny.
It all depends on whether the theist's theism calls on him to allow
the atheist to be an atheist, and whether the atheist's atheism calls
on him to allow the theist to be a theist, both getting along, or
not, with each other, without respect to their positions in this area.
As you point out, the Marxism as implemented in the USSR is an example
of intolerance on the one side. I won't bother pointing out examples
on the other.
Joseph Campbell also made the distinction between a personal God and God.
Sometimes I want to agree with Calvin that God is not knowable by the human
intellect, but I have such an abhorrence to Calvinism that I cannot accept
even the simplest and most obvious of his axioms with extreme effort.
Well, take what makes sense and fits your temperament, and leave the
rest, I always say.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
30 Jul 2005 03:19:17 PM |
|
|
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:16age15jgiijqb3h2fno87leeclkrl7oqk@4ax.com...
"Tom P" <t_h_om_as_p@iyahoo.com> said:
<...>
So, WRT "Atheists on Atheism" well, it is a complex subject. I am not
sure that atheists on atheism are any more self aware, than theists on
theism. But on balance I think they are -- the atheists, that is,
because more of them have been theists, I guess, than there are
theists who have been atheists. I count myself as a non-theist. I
suppose I should count myself as a non-atheist, as well, but I am also
non-agnostic. I believe there is no *person* named "God".
I think atheism here is oversimplified to the point where the expression
is
meaningless. If atheism is simply a statement solely concerning an
"unbelief" or "non-belief" in gods equivalent to an adult not believing
in
the magical powers of Santa Claus, then why the bitter arguments and
highly
personalized exchanges of insults?
Because, well, see my next comment.
To me it is obvious that atheism is as
fiercely held and diligently defended a proposition as any religious
belief
I know of. (Which is not to say atheism is a religion.) And I also think
atheism has ramifications far more consequential than mere disbelief in
the
Easter Bunny.
It all depends on whether the theist's theism calls on him to allow
the atheist to be an atheist, and whether the atheist's atheism calls
on him to allow the theist to be a theist, both getting along, or
not, with each other, without respect to their positions in this area.
As you point out, the Marxism as implemented in the USSR is an example
of intolerance on the one side. I won't bother pointing out examples
on the other.
Yes, of course, tolerance is the key. I suppose the crux of any important
disagreement is at what point does conduct by another become intolerable.
The various Japanese governments of the 1930's and 1940's were intolerably
cruel, and in fact I have read where it is likely that far more Chinese were
killed by Japanese sabers and bayonets that Japanese were killed by American
bombs. But did the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese (and everybody
else for that matter) justify the incendiary and atomic raids on Japanese
cities by Americans? How long should have Americans tolerated slavery
before igniting the Civil War? How long should the working class tolerate a
grossly unfair compensation structure for their labor?
Joseph Campbell also made the distinction between a personal God and God.
Sometimes I want to agree with Calvin that God is not knowable by the
human
intellect, but I have such an abhorrence to Calvinism that I cannot
accept
even the simplest and most obvious of his axioms with extreme effort.
Well, take what makes sense and fits your temperament, and leave the
rest, I always say.
There is wisdom in that. But I still abhor Calvinism.
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wayne Delia" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists on Atheism |
26 Jul 2005 11:17:42 AM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
"Jim07D5" <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:658ae1dptprj151ouftoj5q74hsuktf200@4ax.com...
In like manner, theology has made God invulnerable to rational
disproof by placing God outside reason.
My initial reaction is to disagree, because Aquinas and Maimonides seem to
me to place God at the center of reason. But it has been a long time since
I read them, so I could be mistaken.
You are mistaken, but not due to the time elapsed since you read them.
You are too eager to make the "leap of faith" from "Aquinas and
Maimonides place God at the center of reason" to "God is at the center
of reason."
--
Wayne Delia,
Delta Iota Chapter Advisor, Phi Kappa Sigma at Marist College
"Don't eat me! I have a wife and kids! Eat them!" (Homer Simpson)
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
