"Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com> wrote:

<excellent reply snipped>

Thank you! I had started writing a reply to this but as it got longer I
looked at the clock and thought "this guy just isn't worth the time",
discarded it and moved on. You said pretty much everything I was going to
say, so now I don't feel bad about it. When I replied to his original post
I thought he was worth the time, but clearly he had an indignant reaction
primed and ready before any responses came in.

NC

On 7 Oct 2006 14:25:07 -0700, "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
wrote:

Stephen wrote:

[]

I appreciate the responses from Chris Johnson, Josh Miles, Les
Hellawell, NC, and Llenzlen Klazmon the 15th on the essay I dashed off
the other night. The reason I wrote it was included in my
introduction to address the parts I liked and did not like about
alt.atheism.
When I wrote that I did not realize that anti-theism was such a
large and predictable religion.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion through the responses of 4
or 5 atheists.

Except for one angry and therefore
defensive respondent, almost all dissected every sentence and thought.

When you're talking about 4 people, generalizations tend to be pretty
easy to make. Also meaningless.

Most agreed with some things in my post, and most disagreed with
others. All felt good about the things they agreed with and all
wanted to discuss/evangelize about the parts they didn't. It was
curious to me that all except the angry one agreed and disagreed
almost equally.

Groupthink always happens to some degree or another. First of all,
you've got to have an agreed upon set of definitions to communicate to
any great degree. I noticed almost all of us corrected you (or informed
you) when you used definitions other than the common definitions of
this newsgroup. This is not so much "agree[ing] and disagree[ing]
almost equally" as providing you with the basic definitions to work
from. And when you talk with other people, over time, you pick up some
of each others' mannerisms and speech patterns.

Then there's the fact that most of us have been here a while, talked
with the occasional theist, and have found there's a generally good set
of responses to various claims, and it is thus likely that we'll use
similar ones in the first round of postings. Since you seem not to wish
to discuss your views further, I doubt you will see much in the way of
nuance.

Incidentally, which would you say was the angry one? The printed word
is notoriously bad at conveying emotion, and I detected none from the
others.

My refusal to discuss what I shared about the conclusions I have
developed from my view of the world after removing religions from my
life was said to be that of a "drive-by hit and run religionist".

Well, had you not come back at all, it would very much be hit and run.
Though I would not tack on the religionist unless I was sure you
actually were one.

It
was just a refusal to be dissected on the parts of my learning which
is my job in my life by those who want to evangelize their pure logic
from which they derive their comfort.

Holy run on sentence, Batman! I'm having to mentally insert commas to
parse this sentence. This does not lead to easy communication.

So if I parsed your sentence correctly, you did not wish your life's
work to be subjected to logical examination? If that is inded what you
meant, I'd say that's a rather curious position.

I see posts here where the
anti-theists even resort to the ridicule of people because of their
spelling and/or grammar. Where is the logic or discussion in that?

When text is your medium, certain syntactical conventions must be
obeyed in order to communicate effectively. Commas, for instance, are
fantastic devices for separating clauses into logical units.

At times it becomes ridicule of those that refuse to learn, but if
somebody's spelling/grammar is so bad to be worth ridicule, it's rare
that I actually intend to attempt to discuss something with them. I'm
not a masochist, and I will not bend over backwards to parse the
sentences of people who refuse to make an effort at communication.

I kill trees that create a risk to my house as everyone does. I
eat animals in the form of fish, beef, and pork. (Fish and pork are
my favorites.) I keep no pets. I throw scraps out once a week to
keep the feral cats nearby so they will keep the rats and mice under
control.

Okay? Does this have anything to do with anything? I know it's shortly
followed by '"New Age"?' but I don't really see the relevance to that.

"New Age"? I can't even stand their music.

Because anybody that has new age philosophies *must* like the music.
Good point there, buddy.

Anyway, the reason they suggested you were into new age ***** is
because you started talking about "life force" or something like that.

I do wonder about the fervor of a few who cruise alt.atheism
looking for posts they can debunk with their perfect logic. That
fervor is almost evangelistic in nature.

There are some. But from what I've read from most of the posters, if it
weren't for theists that insist on trying to push their religions, they
wouldn't care at all.

Like the theists, the
anti-theists look for any excuse to attack those who do not conform to
their views.
I hate to say this,

I'll bet you don't.

but you are showing me that anti-theism is as
much a religion as theism is.

Four or five posts that take issue with some details of your post
indicate atheism is a religion?

Simple math: If theism is +1 and
anti-theism is -1, what is the absolute value of 1? 1.

Oh I hope you weren't trying to make a point there. You can't just
arbitrarily assign values, say "Hey look, the absolute values are the
same. Therefore they're the same." That nonsense.

A religion.
Don't even to try to hide behind zero. If anti-theists were truly at
zero, they would have no interest in +1 nor would they try to
evangelize by seeking their brand of pure logic discussions ad
nauseum. I have no use for nor patience with religions, no matter how
much they try to disguise themselves as the only truth with all their
perfect logic; neither the + nor - ones.

So I'm not sure if you think atheism == anti-theism. I'll assume you
do, since you're in alt.atheism talking about anti-theists as if you
were directly criticizing them.

Allow me to get this straight: We're in alt.atheism, a newsgroup
designed for atheists to discuss issues relevant to atheism. Theists
and wielders of faulty logic and poor communication skills often come
in here to assail us with their brand new arguments that they got from
watching Ray Comfort on Google Video. And by ridiculing them *or* by
poking holes in their arguments, we become a religion?

I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. I agree there are some here that crosspost
to other newsgroups in attempts to provoke theists, and there are some
that continually try to disprove gods despite the fact that those that
believe do not listen to argument. And while that may make them, in my
opinion, a little overly combative or display a great amount of free
time, it does not a religion make.

You, and a shitton of other folks, come in here to try to tell us where
we're wrong, or how we're actually anti-theists, or how atheism is a
religion, or how we just hate god, or whatever. What you don't realize
is that this group is a place for (most of) us to blow off steam and
enjoy ourselves, discussing issues relevant to atheists and kicking
around the trolls. And what you all seem utterly incapable of
understanding is that enthusiasm can exist outside the context of a
religion. Interest in religion or religious belief can exist outside of
the context of a religion. Your worldviews don't seem to hold a place
for people to be anything but apathetic about religions without
adhering to one, themselves. But frankly, our worldviews don't change a
bit just because yours are deficient.

So *****. We'll continue doing what we like long after your boring
***** leaves us for good, and it won't make it any more a religious
activity than taking a dog for a walk.

Condescending? Yeh, I know. I get that a lot. I really need to
work on my people skills.

You ain't kidding.

Thanks for your response. You responded exactly as I expected you
would. I am sure you had fun with that. Although, I don't understand
the "*****" part. Where does personal emotion enter in a logical
dicsussion? Perhaps you are the angry one. Whatever. The important
part is that you had fun.
It sounds to me that you require alt.atheism to be a place
exclusive to your own ideas and those of your religion so you can feel
better about being in a group. After this thread dies, I am all for
that. I just want you to be happy.

Smile. See? I'm already working on my people skills.

(I did not spell discussion correctly on purpose. That is tied
into previous posts. I just wanted to see if you noticed it.)

On 7 Oct 2006 14:25:07 -0700, "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
wrote:

Stephen wrote:

[]

I appreciate the responses from Chris Johnson, Josh Miles, Les
Hellawell, NC, and Llenzlen Klazmon the 15th on the essay I dashed off
the other night. The reason I wrote it was included in my
introduction to address the parts I liked and did not like about
alt.atheism.
When I wrote that I did not realize that anti-theism was such a
large and predictable religion.

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion through the responses of 4
or 5 atheists.

Except for one angry and therefore
defensive respondent, almost all dissected every sentence and thought.

When you're talking about 4 people, generalizations tend to be pretty
easy to make. Also meaningless.

Most agreed with some things in my post, and most disagreed with
others. All felt good about the things they agreed with and all
wanted to discuss/evangelize about the parts they didn't. It was
curious to me that all except the angry one agreed and disagreed
almost equally.

Groupthink always happens to some degree or another. First of all,
you've got to have an agreed upon set of definitions to communicate to
any great degree. I noticed almost all of us corrected you (or informed
you) when you used definitions other than the common definitions of
this newsgroup. This is not so much "agree[ing] and disagree[ing]
almost equally" as providing you with the basic definitions to work
from. And when you talk with other people, over time, you pick up some
of each others' mannerisms and speech patterns.

Then there's the fact that most of us have been here a while, talked
with the occasional theist, and have found there's a generally good set
of responses to various claims, and it is thus likely that we'll use
similar ones in the first round of postings. Since you seem not to wish
to discuss your views further, I doubt you will see much in the way of
nuance.

Incidentally, which would you say was the angry one? The printed word
is notoriously bad at conveying emotion, and I detected none from the
others.

My refusal to discuss what I shared about the conclusions I have
developed from my view of the world after removing religions from my
life was said to be that of a "drive-by hit and run religionist".

Well, had you not come back at all, it would very much be hit and run.
Though I would not tack on the religionist unless I was sure you
actually were one.

It
was just a refusal to be dissected on the parts of my learning which
is my job in my life by those who want to evangelize their pure logic
from which they derive their comfort.

Holy run on sentence, Batman! I'm having to mentally insert commas to
parse this sentence. This does not lead to easy communication.

So if I parsed your sentence correctly, you did not wish your life's
work to be subjected to logical examination? If that is inded what you
meant, I'd say that's a rather curious position.

I see posts here where the
anti-theists even resort to the ridicule of people because of their
spelling and/or grammar. Where is the logic or discussion in that?

When text is your medium, certain syntactical conventions must be
obeyed in order to communicate effectively. Commas, for instance, are
fantastic devices for separating clauses into logical units.

At times it becomes ridicule of those that refuse to learn, but if
somebody's spelling/grammar is so bad to be worth ridicule, it's rare
that I actually intend to attempt to discuss something with them. I'm
not a masochist, and I will not bend over backwards to parse the
sentences of people who refuse to make an effort at communication.

I kill trees that create a risk to my house as everyone does. I
eat animals in the form of fish, beef, and pork. (Fish and pork are
my favorites.) I keep no pets. I throw scraps out once a week to
keep the feral cats nearby so they will keep the rats and mice under
control.

Okay? Does this have anything to do with anything? I know it's shortly
followed by '"New Age"?' but I don't really see the relevance to that.

"New Age"? I can't even stand their music.

Because anybody that has new age philosophies *must* like the music.
Good point there, buddy.

Anyway, the reason they suggested you were into new age ***** is
because you started talking about "life force" or something like that.

I do wonder about the fervor of a few who cruise alt.atheism
looking for posts they can debunk with their perfect logic. That
fervor is almost evangelistic in nature.

There are some. But from what I've read from most of the posters, if it
weren't for theists that insist on trying to push their religions, they
wouldn't care at all.

Like the theists, the
anti-theists look for any excuse to attack those who do not conform to
their views.
I hate to say this,

I'll bet you don't.

but you are showing me that anti-theism is as
much a religion as theism is.

Four or five posts that take issue with some details of your post
indicate atheism is a religion?

Simple math: If theism is +1 and
anti-theism is -1, what is the absolute value of 1? 1.

Oh I hope you weren't trying to make a point there. You can't just
arbitrarily assign values, say "Hey look, the absolute values are the
same. Therefore they're the same." That nonsense.

A religion.
Don't even to try to hide behind zero. If anti-theists were truly at
zero, they would have no interest in +1 nor would they try to
evangelize by seeking their brand of pure logic discussions ad
nauseum. I have no use for nor patience with religions, no matter how
much they try to disguise themselves as the only truth with all their
perfect logic; neither the + nor - ones.

So I'm not sure if you think atheism == anti-theism. I'll assume you
do, since you're in alt.atheism talking about anti-theists as if you
were directly criticizing them.

Allow me to get this straight: We're in alt.atheism, a newsgroup
designed for atheists to discuss issues relevant to atheism. Theists
and wielders of faulty logic and poor communication skills often come
in here to assail us with their brand new arguments that they got from
watching Ray Comfort on Google Video. And by ridiculing them *or* by
poking holes in their arguments, we become a religion?

I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. I agree there are some here that crosspost
to other newsgroups in attempts to provoke theists, and there are some
that continually try to disprove gods despite the fact that those that
believe do not listen to argument. And while that may make them, in my
opinion, a little overly combative or display a great amount of free
time, it does not a religion make.

You, and a shitton of other folks, come in here to try to tell us where
we're wrong, or how we're actually anti-theists, or how atheism is a
religion, or how we just hate god, or whatever. What you don't realize
is that this group is a place for (most of) us to blow off steam and
enjoy ourselves, discussing issues relevant to atheists and kicking
around the trolls. And what you all seem utterly incapable of
understanding is that enthusiasm can exist outside the context of a
religion. Interest in religion or religious belief can exist outside of
the context of a religion. Your worldviews don't seem to hold a place
for people to be anything but apathetic about religions without
adhering to one, themselves. But frankly, our worldviews don't change a
bit just because yours are deficient.

So *****. We'll continue doing what we like long after your boring
***** leaves us for good, and it won't make it any more a religious
activity than taking a dog for a walk.

Condescending? Yeh, I know. I get that a lot. I really need to
work on my people skills.

You ain't kidding.

Thanks for your response. You responded exactly as I expected you
would. I am sure you had fun with that. Although, I don't understand
the "*****" part.

Where does personal emotion enter in a logical dicsussion?

Perhaps you are the angry one.

Whatever. The important part is that you had fun.

It sounds to me that you require alt.atheism to be a place
exclusive to your own ideas

and those of your religion

so you can feel better about being in a group.

After this thread dies, I am all for that. I just want you to be happy.

Smile. See? I'm already working on my people skills.

(I did not spell discussion correctly on purpose. That is tied
into previous posts. I just wanted to see if you noticed it.)