I was referring to a political dogma.

Define it. I didn't see one.

jwk

Look at #2 in this topics original post. Then find it in 50 posts all
over this board. Find it in "Aheists Do Not Know Was:Re: Conditions
Required to be an Athiest?" because that is where this discussion has
migrated. Please don't argue that no authority told you to say it. It
just has to the accepted authoritative doctrine to be a dogma.

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

Are these two positions required to be an atheist?

1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.

2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions

are

not

relevant in any way.

You are never going to get an agreement from us. That is the

only

condition for being an atheist - we don't have dogma.

jwk

That's interesting. I find the abject desire to do an end run

around

this question dogmatic.

I'm an agnostic.

dogma - a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or

morals

formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.

How can anything I do, on my own without any authority telling me

to,

be dogmatic? If I had given you an answer, even a slippery one,

that

matched what some authority told me to say, that would be dogma.
Invest in a dictionary.

As for "do[ing] and end run around" your question - the phrase

implies

that I was afraid to answer so I slipped out ot it. Hardly. I

just

found it to be a boring topic and decided to supply a better one.

You

aren't the first non-atheist to come here and try to get us to

agree

with some strawman so you could then beat us over the head with

it.

jwk
BAAWA

I was referring to a political dogma.

Define it. I didn't see one.

jwk

Look at #2 in this topics original post. Then find it in 50 posts all
over this board. Find it in "Aheists Do Not Know Was:Re: Conditions
Required to be an Athiest?" because that is where this discussion has
migrated. Please don't argue that no authority told you to say it. It
just has to the accepted authoritative doctrine to be a dogma.

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

Harry F. Leopold wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:33:15 -0600, FreeThink wrote
(in article

<1105947195.613852.100970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

Are these two positions required to be an atheist?

1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.

2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions

not

relevant in any way.

You are never going to get an agreement from us. That is

only

condition for being an atheist - we don't have dogma.

jwk

That's interesting. I find the abject desire to do an end run

around

this question dogmatic.

I'm an agnostic.

And when I was a Catholic Father Brennen said exactly the same

about

himself,

that he was an agnostic. The word is nearly worthless when it

comes

to

explaining anything about a person. It means " without

knowledge,"

not

"undecided."

That's not true but if it was:

Why should these descriptions be about labels with content? The

need

for political lingoism? I am what I am. Politics have nothing to

with this.

My flavor of agnosticism says a great deal about me. I feel that

are

not capable of validating a god concept besides just not knowing
myself. None of us know, even atheists. I'm not going to start
addressing how impossible judao-christian god concepts are

that

is just not relevant. However, atheists seem to relish examining

these

facts and finding the falseness in them. The details are not

relevant.

We cannot know!

I have to disagree. When people say "you can't prove God doesn't
exist" they are using the absolute, mathematical definition of a

proof.

(Funny coming from people who never care that much about precision

any

other time.) However, for all practical purposes, you can use the

old

fashioned rule of thumb "if it sounds too good to be true (or just

too

ridiculous), it ain't". The Christian "God", as far as the cowards

are

willing to define it, is ludicrous. That's enough "proof" for me

that

it doesn't exist. People don't require your higher level of proof

function day-by-day in any other part of their life. Why should
accepting (or even considering) the possibility of this ridiculous
god-thingy be the exception?

There is one basic premise that these god concepts share.

Despite all of the strange details theists apply to the concept to
rationalize their view of it, we cannot claim have the ablility to
understand such a thing.

My type of agnosticism is worth distinguishing from atheism and

theism.

You atheists say that it is not relevant to address the meaning

the

word god. I agree. My aim is to get you to really do that!

Didn't those last two sentences contradict each other?

You agree that
it is not relevant to address the meaning of the word god, and you

aim

is to get us to do exactly that? Try decaf.

jwk

Your deny applying any meaning to the word yet debate endlessly with
theists, using their definitions, to disprove it. All you really need
to know is this god concept is beyond our realm of understanding. End
of story. Nothing left to discuss. We can't know.

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

Harry F. Leopold wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:33:15 -0600, FreeThink wrote
(in article

<1105947195.613852.100970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

Are these two positions required to be an atheist?

1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.

2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are

not

relevant in any way.

You are never going to get an agreement from us. That is the

only

condition for being an atheist - we don't have dogma.

jwk

That's interesting. I find the abject desire to do an end run

around

this question dogmatic.

I'm an agnostic.

And when I was a Catholic Father Brennen said exactly the same

about

himself,

that he was an agnostic. The word is nearly worthless when it

comes

to

explaining anything about a person. It means " without

knowledge,"

not

"undecided."

That's not true but if it was:

Why should these descriptions be about labels with content? The

need

for political lingoism? I am what I am. Politics have nothing to do
with this.

My flavor of agnosticism says a great deal about me. I feel that we

are

not capable of validating a god concept besides just not knowing
myself. None of us know, even atheists. I'm not going to start
addressing how impossible judao-christian god concepts are because

that

is just not relevant. However, atheists seem to relish examining

these

facts and finding the falseness in them. The details are not

relevant.

We cannot know!

I have to disagree. When people say "you can't prove God doesn't
exist" they are using the absolute, mathematical definition of a

proof.

(Funny coming from people who never care that much about precision

any

other time.) However, for all practical purposes, you can use the

old

fashioned rule of thumb "if it sounds too good to be true (or just

too

ridiculous), it ain't". The Christian "God", as far as the cowards

are

willing to define it, is ludicrous. That's enough "proof" for me

that

it doesn't exist. People don't require your higher level of proof to
function day-by-day in any other part of their life. Why should
accepting (or even considering) the possibility of this ridiculous
god-thingy be the exception?

There is one basic premise that these god concepts share. Omnipotence.
Despite all of the strange details theists apply to the concept to
rationalize their view of it, we cannot claim have the ablility to
understand such a thing.

My type of agnosticism is worth distinguishing from atheism and

theism.

You atheists say that it is not relevant to address the meaning of

the

word god. I agree. My aim is to get you to really do that!

Didn't those last two sentences contradict each other?

You agree that
it is not relevant to address the meaning of the word god, and you

aim

is to get us to do exactly that? Try decaf.

jwk

Your deny applying any meaning to the word yet debate endlessly with
theists, using their definitions, to disprove it. All you really need
to know is this god concept is beyond our realm of understanding. End
of story. Nothing left to discuss. We can't know.

jwk wrote:

FreeThink wrote:

Harry F. Leopold wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:33:15 -0600, FreeThink wrote
(in article

<1105947195.613852.100970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):

The Christian "God", as far as the cowards
are willing to define it, is ludicrous. That's enough "proof" for me
that it doesn't exist. People don't require your higher level of proof to
function day-by-day in any other part of their life. Why should
accepting (or even considering) the possibility of this ridiculous
god-thingy be the exception?

There is one basic premise that these god concepts share. Omnipotence.
Despite all of the strange details theists apply to the concept to
rationalize their view of it, we cannot claim have the ablility to
understand such a thing.

My type of agnosticism is worth distinguishing from atheism and

theism.

You atheists say that it is not relevant to address the meaning of

the

word god. I agree. My aim is to get you to really do that!

Didn't those last two sentences contradict each other?

You agree that
it is not relevant to address the meaning of the word god, and you

aim

is to get us to do exactly that? Try decaf.

jwk

Your deny applying any meaning to the word yet debate endlessly with
theists, using their definitions, to disprove it. All you really need
to know is this god concept is beyond our realm of understanding.

End of story.

Nothing left to discuss.

We can't know.

On 14 Jan 2005 14:36:06 -0600,

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:00:16 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:

On 13 Jan 2005, J Forbes dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:

See if you can get a theist to tell you just what is the god thingy he
believes in....

I had one tell me "god" is a word for the creator of the universe. Where
would you take it from there?

Ask him if his creator is sentinent.

That's a human frailty that we deal with.