| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rune Børsjø" |
| Date: |
16 Oct 2004 01:23:25 AM |
| Object: |
Born again atheist... |
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
16 Oct 2004 05:44:49 AM |
|
|
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com...
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't have
language yet, bananabrain. Incidentally "born again" is a catch phrase used
by Jesus (if that part of the Bible is true) to describe receptivity to mind
control. That's why a rich man can't hardly get to the kingdom of heaven,
because his pre-occupation with wealth creates a narcissistic obstacle to
the self-hypnosis.
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
16 Oct 2004 01:33:45 PM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com...
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't have
language yet, bananabrain. Incidentally "born again" is a catch phrase used
by Jesus (if that part of the Bible is true) to describe receptivity to mind
control. That's why a rich man can't hardly get to the kingdom of heaven,
because his pre-occupation with wealth creates a narcissistic obstacle to
the self-hypnosis.
Saw an interesting interview recently with creators of the Southpark TV series
which features four foul-mouthed obnoxious brats. One interviewee explained
their rationale that kids aren't born civilized or altruistic, but rather
self-centered, anti-social and crude. Parents have the responsibility of
"indoctrinating" (my term) and shaping them ("by mind control"?) into civilized
human beings. With that scenario in mind, to be "born again" would be to become
a complete sociopath, wouldn't it?
Denny
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
16 Oct 2004 08:09:35 PM |
|
|
"dgillesp" <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:41716989.FEF05589@nospam.net...
Ike wrote:
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com...
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't
have
language yet, bananabrain. Incidentally "born again" is a catch phrase
used
by Jesus (if that part of the Bible is true) to describe receptivity to
mind
control. That's why a rich man can't hardly get to the kingdom of
heaven,
because his pre-occupation with wealth creates a narcissistic obstacle
to
the self-hypnosis.
Saw an interesting interview recently with creators of the Southpark TV
series
which features four foul-mouthed obnoxious brats. One interviewee
explained
their rationale that kids aren't born civilized or altruistic, but rather
self-centered, anti-social and crude. Parents have the responsibility of
"indoctrinating" (my term) and shaping them ("by mind control"?) into
civilized
human beings. With that scenario in mind, to be "born again" would be to
become
a complete sociopath, wouldn't it?
Denny
Maybe but I didn't see the show. The being born again is usually described
by the believers as implying a state where they become mentally receptive to
religious indoctrination. After a while they get over the self-hypnosis and
rationalize everything. Then the illogical and fantastic belief system
creates "cognitive dissonance" that triggers tribal feelings with the
co-religionists when the language concepts are brought forth. In some sects
it takes the form of mass hypnosis, but in most groups is more genteel in
nature, having a lot to do with mutual economic benefit and a tendency to
rip off outsiders without qualms in doing so, and suppressing adolescent
sexuality for eventual economic gain. It is interesting to me that the
charismatic groups tend not to have nearly as much economic prosperity as
the more laid-back ones.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
24 Oct 2004 11:05:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:33:45 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Ike wrote:
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com...
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't have
language yet, bananabrain. Incidentally "born again" is a catch phrase used
by Jesus (if that part of the Bible is true) to describe receptivity to mind
control. That's why a rich man can't hardly get to the kingdom of heaven,
because his pre-occupation with wealth creates a narcissistic obstacle to
the self-hypnosis.
Saw an interesting interview recently with creators of the Southpark TV series
which features four foul-mouthed obnoxious brats. One interviewee explained
their rationale that kids aren't born civilized or altruistic, but rather
self-centered, anti-social and crude. Parents have the responsibility of
"indoctrinating" (my term) and shaping them ("by mind control"?) into civilized
human beings. With that scenario in mind, to be "born again" would be to become
a complete sociopath, wouldn't it?
"born again" Christians have that tendency, yes.
Christianity is 'self-centred, anti-social, and crude.' 'Strange' how
Christians don't recognize it in their group.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
And Duty Imp and Rapscallion
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rune Børsjø" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
16 Oct 2004 07:49:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:44:49 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't have
language yet, bananabrain.
Everything is a language construct, potatohead. Children are born
godless exactly because it IS a human construct, noodleschtrudel!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
16 Oct 2004 08:09:34 PM |
|
|
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:1062n0plpcp0ip85pug7sufkrhscrpf8eq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:44:49 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't have
language yet, bananabrain.
Everything is a language construct, potatohead. Children are born
godless exactly because it IS a human construct, noodleschtrudel!
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 05:39:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:1062n0plpcp0ip85pug7sufkrhscrpf8eq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:44:49 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't have
language yet, bananabrain.
Everything is a language construct, potatohead. Children are born
godless exactly because it IS a human construct, noodleschtrudel!
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
18 Oct 2004 07:18:05 PM |
|
|
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD993FEE0175D574F04075B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:1062n0plpcp0ip85pug7sufkrhscrpf8eq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:44:49 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't
have
language yet, bananabrain.
Everything is a language construct, potatohead. Children are born
godless exactly because it IS a human construct, noodleschtrudel!
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Just anyone can't put stuff in a dictionary, but those who do are carefully
considering certain prevalent usages of words. Prevalent usages vary with
context and the context in a religious book is not necessarily indicative of
the true nature of what's being defined, bonehead.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
19 Oct 2004 01:09:38 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:18:05 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article <13Zcd.737$%h1.216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD993FEE0175D574F04075B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:1062n0plpcp0ip85pug7sufkrhscrpf8eq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:44:49 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't
have
language yet, bananabrain.
Everything is a language construct, potatohead. Children are born
godless exactly because it IS a human construct, noodleschtrudel!
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Just anyone can't put stuff in a dictionary, but those who do
are carefully considering certain prevalent usages of words.
Prevalent usages vary with context and the context in a
religious book is not necessarily indicative of the true nature
of what's being defined, bonehead.
Who was talking about those terms in the context of a religious
book?
Or were you just hoping that noise would be equated with substance?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
19 Oct 2004 09:07:01 PM |
|
|
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9AFAD20005EBF6F02845B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:18:05 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article <13Zcd.737$%h1.216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD993FEE0175D574F04075B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:1062n0plpcp0ip85pug7sufkrhscrpf8eq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:44:49 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Atheism and religion are language constructs, dumbhead. Babies don't
have
language yet, bananabrain.
Everything is a language construct, potatohead. Children are born
godless exactly because it IS a human construct, noodleschtrudel!
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Just anyone can't put stuff in a dictionary, but those who do
are carefully considering certain prevalent usages of words.
Prevalent usages vary with context and the context in a
religious book is not necessarily indicative of the true nature
of what's being defined, bonehead.
Who was talking about those terms in the context of a religious
book?
Or were you just hoping that noise would be equated with substance?
Have Fun
Martin
Dictionary definitions are a guide to meaning, not a final definition of
meaning. The alternative definition you quoted seems to be from a religious
context. Dictionary definitions are not a final authority on anything.
That's why there are usually multiple definitions in the dictionary for
various contexts, meathead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
20 Oct 2004 12:31:14 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:07:01 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<9Ljdd.1849$%h1.1216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9AFAD20005EBF6F02845B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:18:05 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article <13Zcd.737$%h1.216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD993FEE0175D574F04075B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
[snip earlier]
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Just anyone can't put stuff in a dictionary, but those who do
are carefully considering certain prevalent usages of words.
Prevalent usages vary with context and the context in a
religious book is not necessarily indicative of the true nature
of what's being defined, bonehead.
Who was talking about those terms in the context of a religious
book?
Or were you just hoping that noise would be equated with substance?
Have Fun
Martin
Dictionary definitions are a guide to meaning, not a final definition of
meaning. The alternative definition you quoted seems to be from a religious
context. Dictionary definitions are not a final authority on anything.
That's why there are usually multiple definitions in the dictionary for
various contexts, meathead.
Sure, but in the absence of anything more concrete than the
dictionary [hint: you haven't provided anything as concrete], I'm
ahead of the game.
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
20 Oct 2004 08:20:24 PM |
|
|
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9C43520052EA9BF04885B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:07:01 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<9Ljdd.1849$%h1.1216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9AFAD20005EBF6F02845B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:18:05 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article <13Zcd.737$%h1.216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD993FEE0175D574F04075B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
[snip earlier]
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Just anyone can't put stuff in a dictionary, but those who do
are carefully considering certain prevalent usages of words.
Prevalent usages vary with context and the context in a
religious book is not necessarily indicative of the true nature
of what's being defined, bonehead.
Who was talking about those terms in the context of a religious
book?
Or were you just hoping that noise would be equated with substance?
Have Fun
Martin
Dictionary definitions are a guide to meaning, not a final definition of
meaning. The alternative definition you quoted seems to be from a
religious
context. Dictionary definitions are not a final authority on anything.
That's why there are usually multiple definitions in the dictionary for
various contexts, meathead.
Sure, but in the absence of anything more concrete than the
dictionary [hint: you haven't provided anything as concrete], I'm
ahead of the game.
Actually the point is that godlessness would be the absence of God. i'll
grant that in a context where language is used Atheism is godlessness, but
godlessness isn't always atheist, in a context without language. Religion
can't exist without language. Atheism can't be expressed without language.
If there is no God, then without language there is nothing to deny. Atheism
is an irrevelant concept without language because all reality has nothing to
do with a God idea, pro or con. The God idea has to have a verbal component.
Even the Bible says hat in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.
just because the Bible says it doen't mean it's true, but it's one of the
few things in the Bible that gets to the Achilles heel of religion itself.
It depends on language.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Crisp" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
21 Oct 2004 11:49:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:20:24 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<s9Edd.2677$%h1.1212@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9C43520052EA9BF04885B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:07:01 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<9Ljdd.1849$%h1.1216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9AFAD20005EBF6F02845B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:18:05 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article <13Zcd.737$%h1.216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD993FEE0175D574F04075B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
[snip earlier]
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Just anyone can't put stuff in a dictionary, but those who do
are carefully considering certain prevalent usages of words.
Prevalent usages vary with context and the context in a
religious book is not necessarily indicative of the true nature
of what's being defined, bonehead.
Who was talking about those terms in the context of a religious
book?
Or were you just hoping that noise would be equated with substance?
Have Fun
Martin
Dictionary definitions are a guide to meaning, not a final definition of
meaning. The alternative definition you quoted seems to be from a
religious
context. Dictionary definitions are not a final authority on anything.
That's why there are usually multiple definitions in the dictionary for
various contexts, meathead.
Sure, but in the absence of anything more concrete than the
dictionary [hint: you haven't provided anything as concrete], I'm
ahead of the game.
Actually the point is that godlessness would be the absence of God. i'll
So if *I* am penniless (in a state of pennilessness), then pennies
don't exist?
grant that in a context where language is used Atheism is godlessness, but
godlessness isn't always atheist, in a context without language. Religion
can't exist without language. Atheism can't be expressed without language.
You're dangerously close to saying that something cannot exist
unless it can be expressed. => In which case radioactivity didn't
exist until the last century => quite a surprise to some rocks, I
would imagine (well, if rocks were/are capable of surprise, of
course)
If there is no God, then without language there is nothing to deny. Atheism
is an irrevelant concept without language because all reality has nothing to
do with a God idea, pro or con. The God idea has to have a verbal component.
A language component, you mean. Is that "because of the 'God'" or
"because of the 'idea'"?
Even the Bible says hat in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.
just because the Bible says it doen't mean it's true, but it's one of the
few things in the Bible that gets to the Achilles heel of religion itself.
It depends on language.
=> and by the same route to the 'Achilles heel' of all human
communication.
i.e. so what?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
23 Oct 2004 06:31:54 PM |
|
|
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9EDC9800EED853F02845B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:20:24 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<s9Edd.2677$%h1.1212@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9C43520052EA9BF04885B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:07:01 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<9Ljdd.1849$%h1.1216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD9AFAD20005EBF6F02845B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:18:05 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article <13Zcd.737$%h1.216@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
"Martin Crisp" <Spam.Bucket@tesseract.com.au> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BD993FEE0175D574F04075B0@news.ozemail.com.au...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:09:34 +1100, Ike wrote
(in article
<iDjcd.5432$6k2.3787@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>):
[snip earlier]
Godless doesn't doesn't necessarily = atheist, micronoggin.
Odd, my dictionary says that is what atheism is: godlessness.
[It also says it is 'lack of belief in God or gods']
Just anyone can't put stuff in a dictionary, but those who do
are carefully considering certain prevalent usages of words.
Prevalent usages vary with context and the context in a
religious book is not necessarily indicative of the true nature
of what's being defined, bonehead.
Who was talking about those terms in the context of a religious
book?
Or were you just hoping that noise would be equated with substance?
Have Fun
Martin
Dictionary definitions are a guide to meaning, not a final definition
of
meaning. The alternative definition you quoted seems to be from a
religious
context. Dictionary definitions are not a final authority on anything.
That's why there are usually multiple definitions in the dictionary
for
various contexts, meathead.
Sure, but in the absence of anything more concrete than the
dictionary [hint: you haven't provided anything as concrete], I'm
ahead of the game.
Actually the point is that godlessness would be the absence of God. i'll
So if *I* am penniless (in a state of pennilessness), then pennies
don't exist?
An interesting metaphor. If pennies are objects and you don't have one the
object still exists. If, however, money is considered a language, then you
have to find an alternate language to fill your needs, or how to speak the
money language to get money. It also begs a question whether you are
penniless by choice. If you have never heard of money, then for you
pennilessness is not a personal issue. But pennies still exist as objects
you have never heard of. Like Europeans before they invaded America; America
didn't exist for Europeans..
grant that in a context where language is used Atheism is godlessness,
but
godlessness isn't always atheist, in a context without language.
Religion
can't exist without language. Atheism can't be expressed without
language.
You're dangerously close to saying that something cannot exist
unless it can be expressed. => In which case radioactivity didn't
exist until the last century => quite a surprise to some rocks, I
would imagine (well, if rocks were/are capable of surprise, of
course)
God doesn't exist.
If there is no God, then without language there is nothing to deny.
Atheism
is an irrevelant concept without language because all reality has
nothing to
do with a God idea, pro or con. The God idea has to have a verbal
component.
A language component, you mean. Is that "because of the 'God'" or
"because of the 'idea'"?
Idea, since God doesn't exist.
Even the Bible says hat in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
God.
just because the Bible says it doen't mean it's true, but it's one of
the
few things in the Bible that gets to the Achilles heel of religion
itself.
It depends on language.
=> and by the same route to the 'Achilles heel' of all human
communication.
i.e. so what?
All human communication isn't verbal. All religious communication isn't
verbal. But unlike in some nonverbal human communication, the God concept
can't be adequately expressed without language. I don't think you can lie
nonverbally.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
16 Oct 2004 04:32:09 AM |
|
|
"Rune Børsjø" <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message
news:pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com...
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
I was born atheist, indoctrinated into the Presbyterian division of the
Protestant church and became a born again atheist when I was 8, haven't
looked back since!
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
16 Oct 2004 02:54:45 AM |
|
|
In article <pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com>,
Rune B?rsj? <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote:
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
I don't know about all atheists. Like everyone, I was born an atheist,
but was raised Catholic including having to endure 12 years of Catholic
education. Although I was being heavily indoctrinated, there was always
a little part of me that held out and a little voice that kept shouting
in the back of my head: "This BS that they're feeding me can't be
right!". Even though these thoughts made me feel guilty and afraid of
going to Hell, they didn't go away.
When I reached college and finally admitted to myself that I was an
atheist, it wasn't so much a matter of rebirth as acknowledging what I
'knew' all along.
I often also describe my 'deconversion' as walking out of a cave or a
dark room into the light, so in that sense perhaps there is some analogy
to the birthing process.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
-The ability to change one's mind, ideas, and opinions when confronted with
new facts is the sign of the rational and intelligent. The inability to do
so is the hallmark of the dimwitted and the fanatic. This applies not only
to science and philosophy, but also to politics.-
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
24 Oct 2004 11:02:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 00:54:45 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com>,
Rune B?rsj? <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote:
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
I don't know about all atheists. Like everyone, I was born an atheist,
but was raised Catholic including having to endure 12 years of Catholic
education. Although I was being heavily indoctrinated, there was always
a little part of me that held out and a little voice that kept shouting
in the back of my head: "This BS that they're feeding me can't be
right!". Even though these thoughts made me feel guilty and afraid of
going to Hell, they didn't go away.
When I reached college and finally admitted to myself that I was an
atheist, it wasn't so much a matter of rebirth as acknowledging what I
'knew' all along.
I often also describe my 'deconversion' as walking out of a cave or a
dark room into the light, so in that sense perhaps there is some analogy
to the birthing process.
You climbed out of the pool of *****.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
And Duty Imp and Rapscallion
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
23 Oct 2004 03:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:23:25 +0200, Rune Børsjø <buggeroffm@te.com>
wrote:
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
I prefer; "have returned to origin".....
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
And Duty Imp and Rapscallion
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 07:49:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:23:25 +0200, Rune Børsjø <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote:
Since all people are born atheists,
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of God. New borns
don't know the difference.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 01:43:36 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<vgq4n0tjs9oc4rf43uf8d10hr06vtghfon@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:23:25 +0200, Rune Børsjø <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote:
Since all people are born atheists,
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of God. New borns
don't know the difference.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
You know darn well that the way "atheist" is used in this newsgroup is
simply not believing in gods, rather than asserting there are no gods.
I think what you should be saying, from your viewpoint, is that this
is a trivial observation, and I agree. Until someone can make
intelligent choices, it hardly matters if they do not accept a
particular assertion as true. My cat believes in neither Santa nor
Yahweh, but this is trivially true.
You seem rhetorically challenged, so let me give you some ammo. Babies
are also born without language, and altho they are predisposed to
learn it, they still have to be taught to speak. Few people would
suggest that being without language is a good thing.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "janos petrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 05:54:47 PM |
|
|
(Kermit) wrote in message news:<2b38d8c5.0410171043.640e9980@posting.google.com>...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<vgq4n0tjs9oc4rf43uf8d10hr06vtghfon@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:23:25 +0200, Rune Børsjø <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote:
Since all people are born atheists,
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of God. New borns
don't know the difference.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
You know darn well that the way "atheist" is used in this newsgroup is
simply not believing in gods, rather than asserting there are no gods.
I think what you should be saying, from your viewpoint, is that this
is a trivial observation, and I agree. Until someone can make
intelligent choices, it hardly matters if they do not accept a
particular assertion as true. My cat believes in neither Santa nor
Yahweh, but this is trivially true.
You seem rhetorically challenged, so let me give you some ammo. Babies
are also born without language, and altho they are predisposed to
learn it, they still have to be taught to speak. Few people would
suggest that being without language is a good thing.
Kermit
Your cat is an atheist?
Why, if he were my cat I'd crucify him, then ask...er...wait a minute...uh...
Never mind, forget I brought it up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 11:23:44 PM |
|
|
(janos petrik) wrote in message news:<d2835967.0410171454.24a1204f@posting.google.com>...
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com (Kermit) wrote in message news:<2b38d8c5.0410171043.640e9980@posting.google.com>...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<vgq4n0tjs9oc4rf43uf8d10hr06vtghfon@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:23:25 +0200, Rune Børsjø <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote:
Since all people are born atheists,
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of God. New borns
don't know the difference.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
You know darn well that the way "atheist" is used in this newsgroup is
simply not believing in gods, rather than asserting there are no gods.
I think what you should be saying, from your viewpoint, is that this
is a trivial observation, and I agree. Until someone can make
intelligent choices, it hardly matters if they do not accept a
particular assertion as true. My cat believes in neither Santa nor
Yahweh, but this is trivially true.
You seem rhetorically challenged, so let me give you some ammo. Babies
are also born without language, and altho they are predisposed to
learn it, they still have to be taught to speak. Few people would
suggest that being without language is a good thing.
Kermit
Your cat is an atheist?
Why, if he were my cat I'd crucify him, then ask...er...wait a minute...uh...
Never mind, forget I brought it up.
I think it was because of that time I held her up to the TV. A
televangelist faith healer was saying that all you had to do be healed
was come up to the TV and touch his image, and pray to Jeaysus, and
you would be healed. She'd just come back from the vet, and I was just
wondering... Anyway, she stayed spayed, and I guess the
disappointment just turned her away from religion. Mad at God, I
suppose, like the rest of us...
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 04:25:35 PM |
|
|
On 17 Oct 2004 11:43:36 -0700, (Kermit) wrote:
You know darn well that the way "atheist" is used in this newsgroup is
simply not believing in gods, rather than asserting there are no gods.
The way it is used??????????
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
18 Oct 2004 08:32:34 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:25:35 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 17 Oct 2004 11:43:36 -0700, (Kermit) wrote:
You know darn well that the way "atheist" is used in this newsgroup is
simply not believing in gods, rather than asserting there are no gods.
The way it is used??????????
It is a matter of definition: Can a cat define what it is, to be a
hawk?
Of course not, it can only define what it *thinks* it is, or might be.
The same is true of theists, defining what an atheist is; You can only
describe what you think we are, or what you want us to be.
Most, if not all, of the English dictionaries in common use, were
compiled by xtians
Even the man who coined the word, could only define himself, as
atheists, at that time, tended to keep their heads down, so there was
no consensus among atheist, as to how the word should be defined.
Xtian lexicographers, took it upon them selves to define what *they
thought "atheism", *ought* to mean.
The definition of atheism, which xtians use, is a purely xtian one,
and bears as much relationship to atheism as the cat's view of the
world, does, to the hawk's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
18 Oct 2004 08:34:34 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:32:34 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:25:35 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 17 Oct 2004 11:43:36 -0700, (Kermit) wrote:
You know darn well that the way "atheist" is used in this newsgroup is
simply not believing in gods, rather than asserting there are no gods.
The way it is used??????????
It is a matter of definition: Can a cat define what it is, to be a
hawk?
Of course not, it can only define what it *thinks* it is, or might be.
The same is true of theists, defining what an atheist is; You can only
describe what you think we are, or what you want us to be.
Most, if not all, of the English dictionaries in common use, were
compiled by xtians
The silly thing is that most of them also show the one we atheists us
that accurately describes us. But Christians ignore it and go straight
to the one that doesn't.
Even the man who coined the word, could only define himself, as
atheists, at that time, tended to keep their heads down, so there was
no consensus among atheist, as to how the word should be defined.
Xtian lexicographers, took it upon them selves to define what *they
thought "atheism", *ought* to mean.
The definition of atheism, which xtians use, is a purely xtian one,
and bears as much relationship to atheism as the cat's view of the
world, does, to the hawk's.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 11:19:00 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<9po5n0hg0ffldg8nn9l5lha3tgtnnep4ee@4ax.com>...
On 17 Oct 2004 11:43:36 -0700, (Kermit) wrote:
You know darn well that the way "atheist" is used in this newsgroup is
simply not believing in gods, rather than asserting there are no gods.
The way it is used??????????
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Why Duke, has no one explained this to you? To think of the many
confused posts we could have avoided...
****************************************
From Wikipedia:
Etymology
The term atheism (French athéisme, from athée, meaning atheist, from
Greek 'Αθεος, atheos, meaning godless : a-,
without; + Θεός, theos, meaning god; it has
Indo-European Roots) is formed of the Greek prefix α- (a-),
meaning "without" or "not," and the Greek-derived theism (from
Θεϊσμός, theismos), meaning a
belief in a god. The literal meaning of the term is therefore "lack of
belief in a god."
Types of atheism
Atheism is generally defined by most dictionaries and encyclopedias as
the "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God or gods."
********************************************************************
The more common definition is "denial of the existence of gods".
The more technically correct, and the one used in this newsgroup, is
"does not believe in gods".
The difference, of course, is clear to you and all other thinking
people. Therefore, by this definition, newborns are atheists, as are
anyone else who has never heard of religion.
You know, you're a hard man to help.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 09:56:29 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:23:25 +0200, Rune Børsjø <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote:
Since all people are born atheists,
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of God. New borns
don't know the difference.
New-borns haven't had the lies you guys tell yet....that's all.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 04:24:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:56:29 +0100, Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of God. New borns
don't know the difference.
New-borns haven't had the lies you guys tell yet....that's all.
So you agree, new borns are not atheists.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 05:52:42 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:56:29 +0100, Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of God. New borns
don't know the difference.
New-borns haven't had the lies you guys tell yet....that's all.
So you agree, new borns are not atheists.
No, they are atheists, they haven't had any of your religious crap
forced on them, so how could they be otherwise ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Skype callto://hellward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
20 Oct 2004 08:20:25 PM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:y9qdneKwX_1oau_cRVnysA@pipex.net...
duke wrote:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:56:29 +0100, Jez <iced_spear@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com>
wrote:
All people are not born atheists. An atheist rejects the existence of
God. New borns
don't know the difference.
New-borns haven't had the lies you guys tell yet....that's all.
So you agree, new borns are not atheists.
No, they are atheists, they haven't had any of your religious crap
forced on them, so how could they be otherwise ?
They can be neither theists or atheists because both concepts depend on
language. Without language there is no God concept, and atheism would be
redundant, therefore null.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ShrikeBack" |
|
| Title: Re: Born again atheist... |
17 Oct 2004 04:45:23 PM |
|
|
Rune Børsjø <buggeroffm@te.com> wrote in message news:<pgf1n0tgqp8spe37asslcaq5arat95fdns@4ax.com>...
Since all people are born atheists, wouldn't that really mean that
those of us who were indoctrinated into christianity or other
religions and swung back around to the beginning, are born again
atheists? :-p
The fashionable term for this these days is "recovering Christian".
There are those who suggest "once a Christian, always a Christian",
but I am agnostic on that issue. In any case, to be on the safe
side all recovering Christians should avoid places where the opiate
of the people is bought and sold, lest they lapse back into their
addictive pattern of behavior.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
