attempting again, with consideration

Religions > Atheism > attempting again, with consideration

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Aaron"
Date:	21 Sep 2007 10:20:44 AM
Object:	attempting again, with consideration

First of all, I'm trying to be spammer, or a troll,. Second, I'm trying to
understand the concept of atheism because I'm an inquisitive dude by nature.
Third, I'm not retarted by any definition, and if I'm mentally ill, it is
extremely low end spectrum OCD/ADD which is very common.
I read this:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
I found parts which were eye opening, but then other parts that were not
very compelling. I'll just put in the things that interested me, and hope I
can receive response enough to come closer. It seems, from this reading I
would be an "Agnostic Emiricist".
<quote>
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
</quote>
This is the definition I heard all my life, and it eventually made me
inquisitive. Unfortunately, this curiosity is born of intuition more than
logical thinking. There's just something strange about saying:
NOUN: abscence of belief
After thinking, I realized I was bothered by the fact that a word should
exist to describe not believing that something exists.
This author uses Santa Clause as an example of something that obviously does
not exist.
I don't know if this is going to be accepted as a legitimate thought, but
here it is:
<AaronThinks>
What if gifts did appear under trees from time to time?
Would that be more amazing than the wonder of life itself?
And when I considered these unexplainable Sata instances, I would not know
if they represented a breach of accepted Laws of Reality, like adding mass
to the universe or not.
I would simply go on what I know. The items are there. Even without an
explanation, I cannot comprehend that some mechanism, be it an interaction
in the domain my the reality I experience or the product of an
inhomprensible occurance, I will not turn my back on what I see.
</AaronThinks>
So, all I am saying is: *we are here* - I cannot turn my back on that. I am
aware of my own existance and have capacity to think. But I know the
"aware" describes an indescribable thing and I know the word "think" is just
describing the experience of being aware.
So, I have no reason to believe that my cognative ability is significant in
the context of what causes I perceive to have allowed it to occur - namely
"life on earth" which comes from "the universe existing".
It is very easy for me to imagine a life form with cognative ability which
is a subset of mine. I can teach a dog to fetch, set, and roll over, and
Dolphins can be trained to do complex sychonized aquatic acrobats. Each of
those represent some level of cognative ability, and I think that famous
book that everybody seems to think is funny except me implies that Dolphins
are actually the most intelligent species. I don't have a problem believing
that. They have fairly nice lives. They have little Families. They cruise
around the ocean. They obviously communicate on a fairly complex level, so
I'd bet they have some degree of emotion. I'm not sure who their predators
are, but I guess that would be the major bummer.
Anyway, all I can get from anyone here is either "the big bang did it and if
you can't comprehend a transition from infinite nothing to instantaneous
existance with no trigger (you can't have a trigger in a state of nothing-
you can't even have a possiblity but I can't understand that because my
English language lacks a strong tense, so it has been said).
I've also gotten, "I have better things to think about and I don't really
care".
The former (and this is just honestly, not a attempt to be belligerent) -
sounds like someone trying to convince themself and the latter sounds like
skirting the question.
How can you say, "I believe this. No, I can't rationalize it. But I don't
care cuz I have better things to do." - You are saying you believe it and
you just figure if you spent enough time, you could rationalize it, but why
bother?
Peronally, I am boggled much more by Christians that believe the Bible word
for Word. I have met quite a few. But I can respect their faith. I
understand the concept of faith. They have it, so that is why they believe.
But an atheist seems to not want to admit having faith. Unless you believe
your mind is the only thing that real, then you do have some degree of
faith.
I know this post is not retarded and I'm saying it because I am attempting
to engage in conversation, and I kindly request that you ignore me, for the
good of your own newsgroup, rather than take the time to call me insane,
personality disorded, mildly psychopathic (I know that it was a word with
less harsh of a meaning I just don't remember it) or totally ignorant of how
I come off.
I was MANIC. I posted on this group, even though I know I should not get on
the internet in that state of mind. I'm now less manic, as far as I know.
I truly hope I was able to express my questions in a form that can be
understood and maybe answered, but I will not presume anyone cares to take
the time to do so.
I would suggest, if anything I wrote is not something you've heard a million
times before and you have a thought that you have not previously had, then
please reply.
Honest Regards,
Aaron
PS: would an atheist be more likely to participate in a promising
chryogenics experiement? I like to write and I imagined a small pod coming
into earths orbit with a sick alient in it, along with a description of what
it needed to get better. Possibly, it just needs some Iodone, which his
race could not obtain, so we could cure it. Then I thought, hell - if they
perfect it, I might like to participate. Your heart stops, they say your
dead, but you aint dead, your just beginning to be choked. They quickly,
very quickly, put your through a process which results in at least a state
where your molecular stucture remains intact and does not lose cohesion.
Then, we could launch them, or we could keep them here. It might be good
idea to launch them because eventually humans will most likely go extinct.
I'd like to be floating into eternity. Who knows. maybe I'd go through a
worm hold or some other phenomenon that we have not even comprehended, and
re-do my life, getting born in 1975, but with my memory fully intact! A
tiny baby Aaron, saying, "Hi, mom. Wow you are 21 years old. Why are you
having kids?" - no that's mean. My mom was a devout Christian Hippy and
good to me my whole life. Oh well - this PS is obviously going down the
road that makes people think I"m an idiot, but it is a PS, and I do believe
in the internet giving freedom to all - I do not want to be a troll or a
spammer - maybe I'm just an overly verbose poster? You can call me an
OVBSOB :)
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 11:57:05 AM

"Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijRIi.100626$Vk6.89699@newsfe07.phx...

First of all, I'm trying to be spammer, or a troll,. Second, I'm trying
to understand the concept of atheism because I'm an inquisitive dude by
nature.

ATHEISM IS THE LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD(S).
That's it, hon. If you can't wrap your brain around this incredibly simple
concept, I can't help you.
<babble snipped>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.

User: "Scott Richter"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 11:28:31 AM

Aaron <anodide@hotmail.com> wrote:

<quote>
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
</quote>

This is the definition I heard all my life, and it eventually made me
inquisitive. Unfortunately, this curiosity is born of intuition more than
logical thinking. There's just something strange about saying:

NOUN: abscence of belief

After thinking, I realized I was bothered by the fact that a word should
exist to describe not believing that something exists.

You should be bothered by this. We all should be. As Sam Harris has
pointed out, there's no word for lack of belief in Santa Claus, or lack
of belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There doesn't need to be,
because belief in Santa Claus or the FSM has little or no impact on our
lives. But belief in gods has enormous impact, and so it became
necessary to identify the counter-balancing forces of rationalism and
secularism, as well as to label the notion that theism is baseless,
contradictory, and ultimately wrong. Hence, the need for a word to
describe that.
If you are really interested in learning more about atheism, I recommend
browsing Sam Harris' excellent web site: <http://www.samharris.org/>
.

User: "L. Raymond"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 10:54:38 AM

Aaron wrote:

First of all, I'm trying to be spammer, or a troll,. Second, I'm trying to
understand the concept of atheism because I'm an inquisitive dude by nature.

There is no "concept" of atheism; that was already explained to you.
When there is *no* reason to think something exists - no evidence, no
artifacts, no remains - it is ridiculous to say that it exists anyway.
There is no evidence that any god does now or ever has existed,
therefore we don't accept that there is any god. The *only* reason
there is a special word for that is because a huge majority of the world
are reared to believe that gods exist.

This is the definition I heard all my life, and it eventually made me
inquisitive. Unfortunately, this curiosity is born of intuition more than
logical thinking. There's just something strange about saying:

NOUN: abscence of belief

After thinking, I realized I was bothered by the fact that a word should
exist to describe not believing that something exists.

You should be bothered, because the existence of the word atheism
wouldn't be necessary if the majority of the world didn't think its
fantasy of supernatural beings was actually true. If the vast majority
of the world considered unicorns to be real, true creatures, that would
be the default position and there would be a word to describe those who
don't believe in unicorns.

But an atheist seems to not want to admit having faith. Unless you believe
your mind is the only thing that real, then you do have some degree of
faith.

Not at all. This is why there is the word "atheist", because people like
you insist that certain aspects of religion *have* to hold true for
everyone.

I would suggest, if anything I wrote is not something you've heard a million
times before and you have a thought that you have not previously had, then
please reply.

There is absolutely nothing you could write that we haven't heard a
million times.

PS: would an atheist be more likely to participate in a promising
chryogenics experiement?

Atheists share exactly one thing, not believing that any gods exist.
Beyond that, there isn't anything anyone can say an atheist would do or
think.

...maybe I'm just an overly verbose poster? You can call me an
OVBSOB :)

You got it in one.
--
L. Raymond
.

User: "Kenneth Doyle"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 04:41:41 PM

"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:nt5kngehpzje.gt43xl14pckp$.dlg@40tude.net:

But an atheist seems to not want to admit having faith. Unless you
believe your mind is the only thing that real, then you do have some
degree of faith.

Not at all. This is why there is the word "atheist", because people
like you insist that certain aspects of religion *have* to hold true
for everyone.

It's a way of making themselves feel better about the fact that they know
that their faith is ridiculous (cf. Paul on "the foolishness that we
preach"). If faith is somehow common to all and an unavoidable element of
the psyche, like dreaming is, then we have no choice but to embrace it. We
poor benighted atheists are living in denial, according to them.
.

User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 07:07:13 PM

Aaron wrote:

Stop making it more complicated then it is.
When a theist starts telling you about their god(s), faith, sacred text,
origin of the world and humanity, look them straight in the eye and say:
I don't believe you.
That is what it means to be atheistic.
--
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: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 07:15:57 PM

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

User: "Savageduck"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 12:53:51 PM

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.
Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.
--
� � 4 ��
.

User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 01:20:15 PM

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.
--
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: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 01:32:12 PM

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.
And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.
.

User: "Aaron"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 05:48:27 PM

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Cristopher A Lee, are you, or are you not the person who write a response to
my post in the form of a Preacher on a Stage with crowd shouting over and
over to your every statement "stop trolling".
It was that kind of thing that made me feel it was futile to engage in
further conversation with you, but if you care to hear my opinion:
Question #1: Who said it was rude to pick holes in answers to questions?
Question #2: How do you know my inner sentiment is "Flippancy" ?
I'm not trying to argue, I'll be happy to read it and consider what you say.
And I admit I have ranted in my posting, but it was stream of though writing
that reflected my state of mind -and in the ranting there is a running
theme, and the theme is on topic, and the thoughts are from a person who is
struggling with an idea.
I think what is throwing you off is that I tend to be overly honest and do
not filter my instant reaction, partially because if there is one thing
about this type of communication that is BETTER than face to face debate it
is the ability to go back and analyise you instant reaction compared to what
you, yourself, think about the same topic after some time of consideration.
Moderation is horrible - it leads to dictatorship and corruption (as far as
it applies to that tiny context) but forums that require you to subscribe -
they are very useful. You subscribe and you agree to be respectful and
follow guidelines.
Each is a mode of communications and each comes with intrinsic properties.
Fighting against the intrinsic properties of a mode of communication is
futile. I've tried, back when I was involved with the songwriting group and
it got ambushed by what you would call trolls - well someone opened a
subscription site and it took a few years to get traction, but it did.
.

User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:03:01 PM

Aaron wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Still can't accept the simple reality of what atheism is I see.
Typical.
--
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: "Aaron"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:17:08 PM

"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80fjs4-n2q1.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...

Aaron wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More
proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Still can't accept the simple reality of what atheism is I see.

Typical.

I'm not sure what is going on, but my intuition is that we have a buch of
mountains and mole hills being in a space where you cannot tell the
difference.
Thus chaos steps in and says, "Hi there, I'll be running things until you
realize I'm here"

--
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: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:24:47 PM

Aaron wrote:

"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80fjs4-n2q1.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...

Aaron wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More
proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Still can't accept the simple reality of what atheism is I see.

Typical.

I'm not sure what is going on, but my intuition is that we have a buch of
mountains and mole hills being in a space where you cannot tell the
difference.

yeah, right, what ever you say bub.

Thus chaos steps in and says, "Hi there, I'll be running things until you
realize I'm here"

I don't believe you.
See how easy that works. To bad you don't have a clue as to what it means.
--
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: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:19:38 PM

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:17:08 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80fjs4-n2q1.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...

Aaron wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More
proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Still can't accept the simple reality of what atheism is I see.

Typical.

I'm not sure what is going on, but my intuition is that we have a buch of
mountains and mole hills being in a space where you cannot tell the
difference.

What is going on here, is that you won't let atheists be what we are.
[a shorter whine than usual deleted]
.

User: "Aaron"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:24:43 PM

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e34ef31e4bh9i9mvss0u6ls00jgum5ep0f@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:17:08 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80fjs4-n2q1.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com...

Aaron wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the
relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More
proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Still can't accept the simple reality of what atheism is I see.

Typical.

I'm not sure what is going on, but my intuition is that we have a buch of
mountains and mole hills being in a space where you cannot tell the
difference.

What is going on here, is that you won't let atheists be what we are.

Well regardless of our respective opinions, it has to stop. I'm not trying
to get the last word in so don't regard my lack of a reply as anything more
than say, "this has to stop"

[a shorter whine than usual deleted]

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	24 Sep 2007 10:40:31 AM

"Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com> wrote
snip

Well regardless of our respective opinions, it has to stop. I'm not
trying to get the last word in so don't regard my lack of a reply as
anything more than say, "this has to stop"

What has to stop? Your relentless whining?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:29:51 PM

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:24:43 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Still can't accept the simple reality of what atheism is I see.

Typical.

I'm not sure what is going on, but my intuition is that we have a buch of
mountains and mole hills being in a space where you cannot tell the
difference.

What is going on here, is that you won't let atheists be what we are.

Well regardless of our respective opinions, it has to stop. I'm not trying
to get the last word in so don't regard my lack of a reply as anything more
than say, "this has to stop"

More arrogant rudeness from the pathetic little *****.

[a shorter whine than usual deleted]

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 06:07:57 PM

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:48:27 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Don't be such a whining liar.
.

User: "Aaron"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 06:49:49 PM

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gdsdf3lbo5eb5lhuab51e70mpjcj88leh8@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:48:27 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Don't be such a whining liar.

Hello? Earth to whomever: please tell me which part of what I said was
"whining" and which part was "lying".
Do you get it yet? I'm a real person who is willing to express my real
thoughts unfiltered by any fear of what others may think.
When I was in fifth grade, everbody had to get up in front of the class and
tell what their favorite color was and what their favorite band was, and if
it hadn't been said before, write it on the board, or put another check next
to the one you select.
I said green and added by check.
But as I wrote "Huey Lewis and the News" I started to hear all the kids
laughing at me, and my little 5th year old mind felt pain, but that is who
my favorite band was.
From what I can tell you think I'm engaged in conversation for the purpose
of distracting or causing harm to, or intentionally screwing with this
newsgroup.
I go back and I do see inconsistency in what I said.
That inconsistency is simply a record of me going back and forth and
experiemtning with using various frameworks of understanding.
Just let's do this one thing Christopher, we both know we are adults since
you have a BS and I know i'm 32. Let's try and act that way. Couldn't you
see my not responding to you was simply an attempt to practice what I
preach?
Regards, really I hold no disrespect,
Aaron
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 07:14:44 PM

"Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EYCJi.46236$L_7.29574@newsfe16.phx...

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message

snip

Don't be such a whining liar.

Um, hon, I hate to break it to you, but Mr. Lee doesn't give a *****. You
really don't need to waste your long-winded boring crap on him. It's not
like he'll waste a second reading it.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 06:56:24 PM

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:49:49 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gdsdf3lbo5eb5lhuab51e70mpjcj88leh8@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:48:27 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Don't be such a whining liar.

WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING ***** WHAT YOU THINK.
You came here asking what it meant to be atheist.
And instead of accepting what we told you, you rudely and stupidly
tried to prove it was something else..
Which is arrogantly nasty, because we are real, live atheists
describing ourselves.
Whether you like it or not, what we described actually IS our point of
view.
You weren't hear to learn.
And you have a heck of a lot to undo to climb out of the pit you dug
for yourself.
And instead of even trying, you dig yiourself deeper with each post.
[whining deleted]
.

User: "Aaron"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:00:48 PM

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:00vdf35853i0pkjgr6q8fbms04dhdj934r@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:49:49 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gdsdf3lbo5eb5lhuab51e70mpjcj88leh8@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:48:27 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:54cdf3daudr85r03nq4imc750oa4cqmv2a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:20:15 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Savageduck wrote:

On 2007-09-21 17:15:57 -0700, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net>
said:

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@gmail.com> wrote:

Aaron wrote:

And it doesn't matter why.

That is what it means to be atheistic.

There it is.

Now we should refer our confused OP to "Occam's razor" and the
relief
that should give him.

Notice that Aaron does not attempt to respond to my posting. More
proof
that he is not interested in what atheism is, but is instead trolling
for an argument.

That's right - he asks questions and then rudely tries to pick holes
in the answers.

And when you try to get him to think, he turns flippant.

Don't be such a whining liar.

WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING ***** WHAT YOU THINK.

I am going to word this to try and ask you a question, and I am putting
effort into asking it such that you don't respond with a one-line insult.
OK: What did you mean by "WE" in your all caps sentence that I am referring
to?
Think about it, what is an analogy to this type of communication before the
Internet Protocol was deployed on a global scale? It's an opportunity for
viewpoints to be shared, questioned, accepted, but most of all, it's an
opportunity to find ways for conflicting viewpoints to coexist.

You came here asking what it meant to be atheist.

Yes I did, and in my wildest dreams I never thought I would be told it was a
compltely simple definition, so simple that you have no responsibility to
explain any further than one sentence, as implied by breaking down the word
gramatically.

And instead of accepting what we told you, you rudely and stupidly
tried to prove it was something else..

Let me know in what way I was being rude, and I will consider what you have
to say.
That was very loaded statement. You just stated that I tried to prove your
definition was something else and you qualified that attempt as rude and
stupid.
Do you wish to stand by that statement, or reword it so that I understand
better what you are saying?

Which is arrogantly nasty, because we are real, live atheists
describing ourselves.

To me "nasty people" deliberately put others down to make themselves feel
better.
All I can do as ask you to believe that I did not intend to have this
outcome.
The simplicity of your initial responses led me to believe you would be
happy to engage in debate.
Consider what you know about the world around you. Compare yourself to
someone who might say:
"I am a Christian"
"I am Jewish"
"I am a member of Islam"
to yourself saying:
"I am an Atheist"
Do you see that your description is a blanket negation of a large set of
humans on this planet?
All I am saying is think about that, and tell me if I'm wrong to say that
when you actively take such a stance, you must take some amount of social
responsibility when you interact with "theists".
I am not trying to be insulting.
Maybe I am asking the wrong question.
But I'm not trying to put you down.

Whether you like it or not, what we described actually IS our point of
view.

You weren't hear to learn.

See, this is why I tried to stop engaging in conversation with you. You
make statements like that.
I was not here to learn?
I think you are making a statement with much more breadth than depth there.
Information is lacking. All you have are the words in the threads.
Presumtions like that are inefficient in this context and lead to pointless
argumentation, and further still, the emergence of a mete-social structure,
existing in minds of some number of newsgroup posters, who allow their self
esteem to be derived by their level of belief in their "social standing" on
a newsgroup.
I say, use the good parts of newsgroups - like an unprecedented way to
exchange ideas, and recognize the bad parts, like emotional attachment.
I'm an an empathetic person. I read about a little girl killing herself
after extensive interaction with a suicide newsgroup and I was very
disturbed, I went over to that news group and learned their definitions,
which had sufficiently descriptive amounts of information so I did not have
to struggle to understand the context of the discussion.
But then I realized what was going on. People who describe themselves as
pro-choice with respect to taking your own life were interacting with
others, but there was no control over whom talked to whom. I got disgusted
when I went back and read histories of threads of real life people who
interacted with the newsgroup and left final messages of "see you on the
other side" to the responses of "happy trails" - I was so disturbed that I
felt like it was my responsibility to scream at them with all of my heart.
But I got emotionally attached - felt if I didn't do everything in my power
to stop that newsgroup I was allowing predators to seek out and find
innocent people and facilitate their death.
I fell apart and when I put myself back together, I realized in retrospect I
was simply encountering another instance of "there some things you can
change and there are some things you can't".
I just did not recognize it.
Thus, I am not likely to become emotionally attached the interactions of a
newsgroup.
But my own writing has now made me admit that I should try and tread lighter
when I write.
This topic is not even in the same ball park as the other one though, so I
did not make a connection.
Maybe I should have.
I don't know.

And you have a heck of a lot to undo to climb out of the pit you dug
for yourself.

I'm telling you the truth when I say I am not trying to engage in a social
structure here. I have level 10 force fields up so I will not actually feel
bad no matter what anyone types in response to me.

And instead of even trying, you dig yiourself deeper with each post.

Now I am interested in understanding your definition on "whining". I
honestly do not understand it.
To me a whiner is someone that wants something and won't stop asking for it,
ad-nausium.
Is that what I'm doing here? Tell me if that is the case and promise you I
will cosider you words.

[whining deleted]

User: "Lisbeth Andersson"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	24 Sep 2007 06:59:23 PM

"Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:d%DJi.126676$Mu5.105140@newsfe15.phx:
<...>

Consider what you know about the world around you. Compare
yourself to someone who might say:

"I am a Christian"
"I am Jewish"
"I am a member of Islam"

to yourself saying:

"I am an Atheist"

Do you see that your description is a blanket negation of a large
set of humans on this planet?

<....>
How is this different from saying "I am a Christian"? That is a
blanket negation of all Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, shiks,
pagans .... IOW a large set of humans on this planet.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:54:22 PM

On Sep 23, 9:00 pm, "Aaron" <anod...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

snip
Your lack of imagination is astounding.

Consider what you know about the world around you.

What I know about the world around me is why I discarded theism. Mr.
Lee was not raised with religious programming, and was never afflicted
with religious belief.

Compare
yourself to
someone who might say:

"I am a Christian"
"I am Jewish"
"I am a member of Islam"

to yourself saying:

"I am an Atheist"

Once again, you fail to understand how simple the term really is. It
is shorthand for:
"I am not a Christian."
"I am not Jewish."
"I am not a Muslim."
"I am not a Greek pantheist."
"I am not a Roman pantheist."
"I am not a Norse pantheist."
"I am not a Hindu pantheist."
and etc., etc. for the thousands of other religions mankind has
created.
As Mr. Lee has attempted to tell you many times, atheism is the lack
of theism. Nothing more. The only reason we are becoming more vocal is
because those of you who believe in these creatures are beginning to
impact our lives and our societies with your nonsense. If you could
simply keep it to yourselves, this group and others like it would be
virtual deserts, with philosophers discussing questions that practical
people just don't have time to dither over.

Do you see that your description is a blanket negation of a large set of
humans on this planet?

Their delusions are *not* my problem.

All I am saying is think about that, and tell me if I'm wrong to say that
when you actively take such a stance, you must take some amount > of social
responsibility when you interact with "theists".

*****. Is the world one huge insane asylum, where I must temper my
replies in the name of "compassion"?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
.

User: "Aaron"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 11:22:13 PM

<panamfloyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190598862.226538.226530@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 23, 9:00 pm, "Aaron" <anod...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

snip

Your lack of imagination is astounding.

Consider what you know about the world around you.

What I know about the world around me is why I discarded theism. Mr.
Lee was not raised with religious programming, and was never afflicted
with religious belief.

Compare
yourself to
someone who might say:

"I am a Christian"
"I am Jewish"
"I am a member of Islam"

to yourself saying:

"I am an Atheist"

Once again, you fail to understand how simple the term really is. It
is shorthand for:

"I am not a Christian."
"I am not Jewish."
"I am not a Muslim."
"I am not a Greek pantheist."
"I am not a Roman pantheist."
"I am not a Norse pantheist."
"I am not a Hindu pantheist."
and etc., etc. for the thousands of other religions mankind has
created.

As Mr. Lee has attempted to tell you many times, atheism is the lack
of theism. Nothing more. The only reason we are becoming more vocal is
because those of you who believe in these creatures are beginning to
impact our lives and our societies with your nonsense. If you could
simply keep it to yourselves, this group and others like it would be
virtual deserts, with philosophers discussing questions that practical
people just don't have time to dither over.

Do you see that your description is a blanket negation of a large set of
humans on this planet?

Their delusions are *not* my problem.

All I am saying is think about that, and tell me if I'm wrong to say that
when you actively take such a stance, you must take some amount > of
social
responsibility when you interact with "theists".

*****. Is the world one huge insane asylum, where I must temper my
replies in the name of "compassion"?

It would be kind of you to do so if you had nothing to gain.
By the way, point out to me where you are getting the S--- end of the stick
just because of saying your an atheist. Not a challenge. I'll be right
there backing you up. Descrimination is NOT OK, and setparation of church
and state is SUPPOSEDLY a guiding force.
You don't deserve to be treated differently, as a member of society you
should be treated as an equal.
Just give me a link, something. This is NOT a challenge. This is genuine
INEREST.
Regards,
Aaron

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

User: ""
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	24 Sep 2007 12:48:01 PM

On Sep 24, 12:22 am, "Aaron" <anod...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

snip

All I am saying is think about that, and tell me if I'm wrong to say that
when you actively take such a stance, you must take some amount > of
social
responsibility when you interact with "theists".

*****. Is the world one huge insane asylum, where I must temper my
replies in the name of "compassion"?

It would be kind of you to do so if you had nothing to gain.

One cannot coddle every idiot one encounters. There would be no
honesty in the world, and no time to accomplish anything else. Should
I be so "kind" if someone says something equally stupid about sports?
Why should religion recieve special treatment? Because it's
"personal"? If it's so stinking personal, perhaps they should keep it
to themselves in public.

By the way, point out to me where you are getting the S--- end of the stick
just because of saying your an atheist.

It has nothing to do with me personally. It has to do with the
advancement of humanity. Would I have been morally right to ignore
slavery in the 1800s? After all, I'm not a slave...
Religion is an effrontery to the human race. It has stood in
opposition to *every* advancement in learning and social change we've
made. It is a vestigial organ left over from some period in our savage
past. And just like a burst appendix, it's time for it to go.

Not a challenge. I'll be right
there backing you up. Descrimination is NOT OK, and setparation of church
and state is SUPPOSEDLY a guiding force.

"Freedom is the distance between church and state."

You don't deserve to be treated differently, as a member of society you
should be treated as an equal.

Just give me a link, something. This is NOT a challenge. This is genuine
INEREST.

First suggestion: think bigger. You speak of local issues and
discrimination in the US. I'm talking the survival of our species.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html\
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 10:04:04 PM

On Sep 23, 6:54 pm,

wrote:

On Sep 23, 9:00 pm, "Aaron" <anod...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Christopher A.Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message

snip

Your lack of imagination is astounding.

Consider what you know about the world around you.

What I know about the world around me is why I discarded theism. Mr.
Lee was not raised with religious programming, and was never afflicted
with religious belief.

Compare
yourself to
someone who might say:

"I am a Christian"
"I am Jewish"
"I am a member of Islam"

to yourself saying:

"I am an Atheist"

Once again, you fail to understand how simple the term really is. It
is shorthand for:

"I am not a Christian."
"I am not Jewish."
"I am not a Muslim."
"I am not a Greek pantheist."
"I am not a Roman pantheist."
"I am not a Norse pantheist."
"I am not a Hindu pantheist."
and etc., etc. for the thousands of other religions mankind has
created.

As Mr. Lee has attempted to tell you many times, atheism is the lack
of theism. Nothing more. The only reason we are becoming more vocal is
because those of you who believe in these creatures are beginning to
impact our lives and our societies with your nonsense.

Ahem. "Beginning" to impact our lives?
Carry on...

If you could
simply keep it to yourselves, this group and others like it would be
virtual deserts, with philosophers discussing questions that practical
people just don't have time to dither over.

Do you see that your description is a blanket negation of a large set of
humans on this planet?

Their delusions are *not* my problem.

All I am saying is think about that, and tell me if I'm wrong to say that
when you actively take such a stance, you must take some amount > of social
responsibility when you interact with "theists".

*****. Is the world one huge insane asylum, where I must temper my
replies in the name of "compassion"?

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

User: "Christopher A.Lee"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	23 Sep 2007 08:05:30 PM

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 18:00:48 -0700, "Aaron" <anodide@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Do you get it yet? I'm a real person who is willing to express my real
thoughts unfiltered by any fear of what others may think.

WE DON'T GIVE A FLYING ***** WHAT YOU THINK.

I am going to word this to try and ask you a question, and I am putting
effort into asking it such that you don't respond with a one-line insult.

The whining little ***** comes here, acts like a jerk and t hen
arrogantly lays down how he wants people to reply.

OK: What did you mean by "WE" in your all caps sentence that I am referring
to?

WE ATHEISTS, MORON.
[whining deleted]
.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 12:53:05 PM

Aaron wrote:

Peronally, I am boggled much more by Christians that believe the Bible word
for Word. I have met quite a few. But I can respect their faith. I
understand the concept of faith. They have it, so that is why they believe.

I cannot respect faith, because I respect honesty. You can't have
both. Faith means ignoring what you see and think, and just
continuing to believe what you believe, right or wrong.
Think about it.

But an atheist seems to not want to admit having faith.

I might be that atheist, and the reason I don't admit that having
faith, is because I don't have faith.
Jim
.

User: "Aaron"
Title: Re: attempting again, with consideration	21 Sep 2007 10:17:40 PM

"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1190397185.499229.258720@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Aaron wrote:

Peronally, I am boggled much more by Christians that believe the Bible
word
for Word. I have met quite a few. But I can respect their faith. I
understand the concept of faith. They have it, so that is why they
believe.

I cannot respect faith, because I respect honesty. You can't have
both. Faith means ignoring what you see and think, and just
continuing to believe what you believe, right or wrong.

Think about it.

But an atheist seems to not want to admit having faith.

I might be that atheist, and the reason I don't admit that having
faith, is because I don't have faith.

How do you know that everything you see, feel, think, taste, touch --- that
any of it exists outside of your consiousnesss?
How do you know?
Tell me how you know that, other than you take it on faith.

Jim

Page 1 of 4