| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pmb" |
| Date: |
09 Dec 2007 08:45:24 PM |
| Object: |
Definition of "Atheist" |
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
Thank you
Pete
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
13 Dec 2007 05:09:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:27 -0800 (PST), pmb <pmb61@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:30 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:08:28 -0800, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net>
wrote:
On 2007-12-11 14:13:16 -0800, said:
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who believes there is no god, in the same way
most people believe there is no Santa Claus. "Negative atheism" is
indistinguishable (without qualification) from agnosticism, which is,
effectively, the belief that god is as likely to exist as not.
J
Ok, it seems you are lost in this maze of words.
You fail to comprehend what has been written here, and you continue to
attempt to define atheists to fit your mold.
Quite simply for an atheist there is no issue of belief.
:
I am of the growing opinion that this person is a theist troll.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am not a troll. The FAQ for this forum does not answer the question
of definition. I've discussed the definition in previous threads when
such threads was crossposted to sci.physics.relativity when someone
felt the need to discuss it in a physics forum. I was critisixed there
by others who claimed that I didn't know what an atheist is. Since I'm
reading a new book called "Why Atheism?" I thought it woud be helpful
to me in some ways to discuss this with atheists. So if you are still
convinced that I'm a troll then you can easily block me. I have no
desire to prove otherwise since that can prove to be an impossible
task. Rarely is the case when someone forms an opinion on someone else
and is then redealy able to or have a desire to rethink their opinions
which were based.
Pete
Then listen up:
Atheism is the absence of theism.
That is all the definition that you'll ever need.
Evrything else is commentary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
13 Dec 2007 11:19:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:27 -0800 (PST), pmb <pmb61@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:30 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:08:28 -0800, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net>
wrote:
On 2007-12-11 14:13:16 -0800, said:
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who believes there is no god, in the same way
most people believe there is no Santa Claus. "Negative atheism" is
indistinguishable (without qualification) from agnosticism, which is,
effectively, the belief that god is as likely to exist as not.
J
Ok, it seems you are lost in this maze of words.
You fail to comprehend what has been written here, and you continue to
attempt to define atheists to fit your mold.
Quite simply for an atheist there is no issue of belief.
I am of the growing opinion that this person is a theist troll.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am not a troll.
Then stop acting like one.
Take notice of what you are told. And think.
1. There are hundreds of different religions out there, not just
yours.
2. Each with their own god-beliefs, scriptures etc that are only
special inside those religions.
3. Start from that instead of the implicit presumption of one
specific deity of one of the religions.
4. Because there is a real world beyond your whichever religion.
5. And we are part of that.
6. We are individuals who aren't any kind of theist.
7. Which is pretty much all we have in common.
8. Consequently all the different gods are somebody else's religious
belief, around which they weave rituals of worship, supplication
etc, tell stories about, etc.
9. No matter how seriously their believers take them.
10. They are not part of the atheist paradigm apart from the
observation described in (8).
11. We cannot be described accurately from the theist's presumptions
that are only granted inside their religion.
12. We don't have anything to believe doesn't exist.
13. We don't have anything to not know either way.
14. We don't even have anything to "not-believe in".
15. All we are, is the demographic of people who aren't any kind of
theist.
The FAQ for this forum does not answer the question
of definition.
Yes it does.
The one thing it doesn't make clear, which it should do, is that the
very meaning of the word God/god is different between theists and
atheists.
Theists have "defined" us as though their god called "God" were real
and we believe it doesn't exist.
When we actually see it in the same light as all the other (small g)
gods like Zeus, Odin, Osiris and all the others.
In other words in terms of comparative religion
Because we are outside their paradigm.
I've discussed the definition in previous threads when
such threads was crossposted to sci.physics.relativity when someone
felt the need to discuss it in a physics forum. I was critisixed there
by others who claimed that I didn't know what an atheist is.
No. Most likely because you got it wrong, didn't listen when you were
corrected, and tried to "prove" we held a different position.
I have no idea why so many people (mostly believers but also too many
agnostics) do this. It is both arrogant and nasty.
Or why they unthinkingly try to equate atheism with evolution of
cosmology. All three are simply part of the real world beyond their
religion.
It's like demanding what people without mustaches put on their pizza.
Which should be remarkably obvious.
Other remarkably obvious consequences are that not believing in their
whichever deity, we are hardly going to be impressed by somebody who
talks at us as though it should be as real for us as they think it is
for them.
Or somebody who cites their scripture as "proof" of anything.
Since I'm
reading a new book called "Why Atheism?" I thought it woud be helpful
to me in some ways to discuss this with atheists.
The trouble is that there's nothing to discuss.
It's a remarkably simple concept.
If you get us wrong, we get to correct you. And you have to listen and
accept it even if you don't understand it.
And this includes thinking about the real-world-beyond-your-religion
consequences.
So if you are still
convinced that I'm a troll then you can easily block me.
That is arrogantly presumptuous.
Think about it.
You came to a group of atheists who were all too willing to answer
your questions.
But you took no notice of most of the answers.
And for some reason known only to yourself, rudely tried to prove we
weren't telling the truth about us.
And rather than acknowledging the natural human reaction to this, you
tell us how we should answer.
Think about it.
I have no
desire to prove otherwise since that can prove to be an impossible
task. Rarely is the case when someone forms an opinion on someone else
and is then redealy able to or have a desire to rethink their opinions
which were based.
Sigh.
Pete
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
11 Dec 2007 04:54:48 PM |
|
|
On Dec 11, 5:13 pm, wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who believes there is no god, in the same way
most people believe there is no Santa Claus.
No.
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
11 Dec 2007 04:34:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:13:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who believes there is no god, in the same way
most people believe there is no Santa Claus. "Negative atheism" is
indistinguishable (without qualification) from agnosticism, which is,
effectively, the belief that god is as likely to exist as not.
*****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
11 Dec 2007 04:28:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:13:16 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who believes there is no god, in the same way
most people believe there is no Santa Claus. "Negative atheism" is
indistinguishable (without qualification) from agnosticism, which is,
effectively, the belief that god is as likely to exist as not.
*****.
Agnostics have something they single out to be agnostic about.
God is part of the theist paradigm, not the atheist one.
We don't have anything to "believe doesn't exist".
Because all it is is "Somebody else's religious belief".
Nor to be agnostic about.
Please learn to read for comprehension because this has been explained
already several times in this thread.
J
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
10 Dec 2007 06:57:27 PM |
|
|
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who has no belief in the existence of a god,
deity, or supernatural being of any kind. Normally, it is used to
refer to a person who has been exposed to a few such beliefs and opted
not to believe in any of them. This includes both positive (or strong
or critical) atheism and negative (or weak) atheism.
Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist. Technically, a newborn baby
also doesn't think George Bush should have invaded Iraq.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
11 Dec 2007 04:07:41 PM |
|
|
On Dec 10, 4:57 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who has no belief in the existence of a god,
deity, or supernatural being of any kind.
That is a poor definition of an atheist. Someone who is ignorant of
gods and religions is not necessarily an atheist because he has no
belief in gods.
Normally, it is used to
refer to a person who has been exposed to a few such beliefs and opted
not to believe in any of them. This includes both positive (or strong
or critical) atheism and negative (or weak) atheism.
Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist.
No. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. A newborn
has no such belief.
Technically, a newborn baby
also doesn't think George Bush should have invaded Iraq.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
11 Dec 2007 05:25:33 PM |
|
|
On Dec 11, 2:07 pm, wrote:
An atheist is someone who has no belief in the existence of a god,
deity, or supernatural being of any kind.
That is a poor definition of an atheist. Someone who is ignorant of
gods and religions is not necessarily an atheist because he has no
belief in gods.
That's the definition of an atheist, someone who has no belief in
gods.
Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist.
No. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. A newborn
has no such belief.
Then what do you call a person who says, "I have heard all of your
argument supporting the existence of god, and I think that what you
call 'god' is meaningless. I am unable to form any belief about it,
because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me."?
This is a classic atheist view, and encompasses many atheists I know.
They do not "believe there is no god" because they feel the concept
"no god" is as meaningless as the concept "god".
Do you need to create some third category for these people? If so, you
will be the only person who doesn't consider them atheists.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
12 Dec 2007 11:52:01 AM |
|
|
On Dec 11, 3:25 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:07 pm, wrote:
An atheist is someone who has no belief in the existence of a god,
deity, or supernatural being of any kind.
That is a poor definition of an atheist. Someone who is ignorant of
gods and religions is not necessarily an atheist because he has no
belief in gods.
That's the definition of an atheist, someone who has no belief in
gods.
Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist.
No. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. A newborn
has no such belief.
Then what do you call a person who says, "I have heard all of your
argument supporting the existence of god, and I think that what you
call 'god' is meaningless. I am unable to form any belief about it,
because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me."?
An atheist. Such a person would believe there is no god as
described. The last sentence is self-contradictory.
This is a classic atheist view, and encompasses many atheists I know.
They do not "believe there is no god" because they feel the concept
"no god" is as meaningless as the concept "god".
I believe nonsensical, meaningless beings do not exist.
Do you need to create some third category for these people? If so, you
will be the only person who doesn't consider them atheists.
I do consider them atheists.
J
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
12 Dec 2007 05:59:06 PM |
|
|
On Dec 12, 9:52 am, wrote:
Then what do you call a person who says, "I have heard all of your
argument supporting the existence of god, and I think that what you
call 'god' is meaningless. I am unable to form any belief about it,
because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me."?
An atheist. Such a person would believe there is no god as
described. The last sentence is self-contradictory.
You are ascribing to that person a belief they have clearly stated
that they do not have. I can believe that unicorns do not exist, since
I know what they would be if they did. But I do not believe that
fxylplics don't exist.
This is a classic atheist view, and encompasses many atheists I know.
They do not "believe there is no god" because they feel the concept
"no god" is as meaningless as the concept "god".
I believe nonsensical, meaningless beings do not exist.
Sure, but you don't believe that the nonsensical, meaningless being
fxylplic doesn't exist, because you cannot possess any beliefs about
him/it because you do not know what he/it is.
You can believe that particular nonsensical, meaningless beings do not
exist, such as Santa Claus. You can believe that no nonsensical,
meaningless beings exist. You can believe that what other people
describe as god is nonsensical and meaningless, but none of this adds
up to a belief that god doesn't exist.
Just like you have no belief that fxylplic doesn't exist.
Do you need to create some third category for these people? If so, you
will be the only person who doesn't consider them atheists.
I do consider them atheists.
They do not contain any belief that god does not exist. They contain
beliefs that when other people use the word "god", they have no idea
what those other people mean. They could possibly mean something that
does in fact exist, but they cannot tell because nobody is able to
clearly explain what they believe.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
12 Dec 2007 06:33:30 PM |
|
|
On Dec 12, 3:59 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:52 am, wrote:
Then what do you call a person who says, "I have heard all of your
argument supporting the existence of god, and I think that what you
call 'god' is meaningless. I am unable to form any belief about it,
because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me."?
An atheist. Such a person would believe there is no god as
described. The last sentence is self-contradictory.
You are ascribing to that person a belief they have clearly stated
that they do not have. I can believe that unicorns do not exist, since
I know what they would be if they did. But I do not believe that
fxylplics don't exist.
This is a classic atheist view, and encompasses many atheists I know.
They do not "believe there is no god" because they feel the concept
"no god" is as meaningless as the concept "god".
I believe nonsensical, meaningless beings do not exist.
Sure, but you don't believe that the nonsensical, meaningless being
fxylplic doesn't exist, because you cannot possess any beliefs about
him/it because you do not know what he/it is.
You can believe that particular nonsensical, meaningless beings do not
exist, such as Santa Claus.
Or Jehovah. Right. So your "fxyplic" example was apples and oranges,
even if I granted your point (which I don't).
You can believe that no nonsensical,
meaningless beings exist.
Good lord. Of course I can.
You can believe that what other people
describe as god is nonsensical and meaningless, but none of this adds
up to a belief that god doesn't exist.
If I can believe that a nonsensical and meaningless being called "god"
does not exist, then I can indeed believe that "god" does not exist.
Or "fxlplic" if you insist he be so called.
Just like you have no belief that fxylplic doesn't exist.
Do you need to create some third category for these people? If so, you
will be the only person who doesn't consider them atheists.
I do consider them atheists.
They do not contain any belief that god does not exist. They contain
beliefs that when other people use the word "god", they have no idea
what those other people mean.
I don't believe such people exist. I do not even believe you are such
a person. I believe that, as a result of some USENET debate you had
in the past, perhaps with a theist, you argued yourself into believing
you need to think this way, for some reason and are confused.
They could possibly mean something that
does in fact exist, but they cannot tell because nobody is able to
clearly explain what they believe.
A supernatural being that created the heavens and earth, tallies the
fall of each sparrow, and judges the living in the dead at some
unspecified future date does not, I can say with confidence, exist.
Indeed I believe that all beings that can be described as gods (by
what I understand to be the reasonable definition of the term) do not
exist.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
12 Dec 2007 06:45:15 PM |
|
|
On Dec 12, 4:33 pm, wrote:
Sure, but you don't believe that the nonsensical, meaningless being
fxylplic doesn't exist, because you cannot possess any beliefs about
him/it because you do not know what he/it is.
You can believe that particular nonsensical, meaningless beings do not
exist, such as Santa Claus.
Or Jehovah. Right. So your "fxyplic" example was apples and oranges,
even if I granted your point (which I don't).
No. *You* acknowledge a sufficient understand of what "Jehovah" refers
to such that you can believe it exists or doesn't exist. Many atheists
do not.
You can believe that no nonsensical,
meaningless beings exist.
Good lord. Of course I can.
But this is not the same as believing that a particular meaningless,
nonsensical being does not exist. It is simply nonsense to argue that
you have a particular belief about a particular meaningless thing.
You can believe that what other people
describe as god is nonsensical and meaningless, but none of this adds
up to a belief that god doesn't exist.
If I can believe that a nonsensical and meaningless being called "god"
does not exist, then I can indeed believe that "god" does not exist.
Or "fxlplic" if you insist he be so called.
Yes, *you* can. That says nothing about whether other people can. I am
talking specifically about people who can not believe that god does
not exist because they do not know what you mean by "god". They simply
have no way to possess a belief that god does not exist that is the
flipside of someone else's belief that god does exist because they
cannot *find* the referent that your belief refers to.
They do not contain any belief that god does not exist. They contain
beliefs that when other people use the word "god", they have no idea
what those other people mean.
I don't believe such people exist.
They do. There are many of them
I do not even believe you are such
a person.
Nor should you, since I am not one of those people. I believe that I
have a good enough idea what people mean by "god" that I can conclude
that it is sufficiently contradictory to be incapable of existing.
However, not all atheists hold this position. Some honestly claim that
they have no idea what people mean by "god".
I believe that, as a result of some USENET debate you had
in the past, perhaps with a theist, you argued yourself into believing
you need to think this way, for some reason and are confused.
To be clear, the only belief I have stated in this thread is that I
believe that some people honestly do not know what other mean by "god"
with sufficient specificity to hold the belief that no such being
exists. Some of them genuinely believe that if they just could figure
out what things like "holiness" were, they might conclude that such a
thing does exist.
They could possibly mean something that
does in fact exist, but they cannot tell because nobody is able to
clearly explain what they believe.
A supernatural being that created the heavens and earth, tallies the
fall of each sparrow, and judges the living in the dead at some
unspecified future date does not, I can say with confidence, exist.
Right, but this is a very specific notion of god. Believing Zeus does
not exist does not make you an atheist. You must not believe in nay
god, in fact in no supernatural being at all. A person who believed
that such a being existed, except he does tally the fall of each
sparrow, would still be a theist.
You are essentially demanding that an atheist hold an active belief in
the non-existence of a massive array of possible things. Some people
(not me, I assure you) have a very hard time being sure that *no* such
thing could possibly exist. They do not believe in any such thing, but
they hold open that they might some day encounter some thing that they
both believe exists and believe qualifies as a supernatural being.
More importantly, they have no even encountered ever human conception
of god. So they can't possibly hold a belief for each of those
concepts that its referent does not exist.
Indeed I believe that all beings that can be described as gods (by
what I understand to be the reasonable definition of the term) do not
exist.
I agree with you, but not every atheist does. Some are perfectly open
to the fact that they might encounter some kind of supernatural being
and they will accept that it exists.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
13 Dec 2007 12:00:51 AM |
|
|
On Dec 12, 4:45 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 4:33 pm, wrote:
Sure, but you don't believe that the nonsensical, meaningless being
fxylplic doesn't exist, because you cannot possess any beliefs about
him/it because you do not know what he/it is.
You can believe that particular nonsensical, meaningless beings do not
exist, such as Santa Claus.
Or Jehovah. Right. So your "fxyplic" example was apples and oranges,
even if I granted your point (which I don't).
No. *You* acknowledge a sufficient understand of what "Jehovah" refers
to such that you can believe it exists or doesn't exist. Many atheists
do not.
If one is agnostic about the existence of Jehovah, then the
appropriate term for that is agnostic, not atheist.
You can believe that no nonsensical,
meaningless beings exist.
Good lord. Of course I can.
But this is not the same as believing that a particular meaningless,
nonsensical being does not exist. It is simply nonsense to argue that
you have a particular belief about a particular meaningless thing.
A meaningless, nonsensical being clearly does not exist. To pretend
that meaningless, nonsensical fictional characters deserve some sort
of special respect, that they cannot be denied, is political
correctness run amok and doesn't warrant acknowledgment as a
legitimate pov, even if we were to grant (and this would be a huge
concession) that such people are sincere.
You can believe that what other people
describe as god is nonsensical and meaningless, but none of this adds
up to a belief that god doesn't exist.
If I can believe that a nonsensical and meaningless being called "god"
does not exist, then I can indeed believe that "god" does not exist.
Or "fxlplic" if you insist he be so called.
Yes, *you* can. That says nothing about whether other people can.
True, but those people are not properly termed atheists, if they think
as they claim (and I don't believe they really do), except by special
definitions of the term, and I think we can both agree that special
definitions of words are useless definitions, since words are meant to
communicate as transparently as possible, not to act as weird special
codes within, e.g., cliques in USENET newsgroups.
I am
talking specifically about people who can not believe that god does
not exist because they do not know what you mean by "god".
I think that's a rhetorical, not actual, inability. But even if true,
it would make such people agnostics, not atheists. The two categories
don't overlap.
They simply
have no way to possess a belief that god does not exist that is the
flipside of someone else's belief that god does exist because they
cannot *find* the referent that your belief refers to.
They do not contain any belief that god does not exist. They contain
beliefs that when other people use the word "god", they have no idea
what those other people mean.
I don't believe such people exist.
They do. There are many of them
Well, since we're indulging in unproven assertions, here's another:
there are very few who believe what you claim many believe.
I do not even believe you are such
a person.
Nor should you, since I am not one of those people. I believe that I
have a good enough idea what people mean by "god" that I can conclude
that it is sufficiently contradictory to be incapable of existing.
However, not all atheists hold this position. Some honestly claim that
they have no idea what people mean by "god".
Then they are not atheists but agnostics.
I believe that, as a result of some USENET debate you had
in the past, perhaps with a theist, you argued yourself into believing
you need to think this way, for some reason and are confused.
To be clear, the only belief I have stated in this thread is that I
believe that some people honestly do not know what other mean by "god"
with sufficient specificity to hold the belief that no such being
exists. Some of them genuinely believe that if they just could figure
out what things like "holiness" were, they might conclude that such a
thing does exist.
It's not required to understand holiness to disbelieve in, say,
Jehovah, though, so this doesn't make any sense.
They could possibly mean something that
does in fact exist, but they cannot tell because nobody is able to
clearly explain what they believe.
A supernatural being that created the heavens and earth, tallies the
fall of each sparrow, and judges the living in the dead at some
unspecified future date does not, I can say with confidence, exist.
Right, but this is a very specific notion of god. Believing Zeus does
not exist does not make you an atheist. You must not believe in nay
god, in fact in no supernatural being at all. A person who believed
that such a being existed, except he does tally the fall of each
sparrow, would still be a theist.
You are essentially demanding that an atheist hold an active belief in
the non-existence of a massive array of possible things. Some people
(not me, I assure you) have a very hard time being sure that *no* such
thing could possibly exist.
Atheism isn't certainty. It's belief. Belief and certainty are two
different things. Certainty of universal negatives is logically
impossible, anyway.
They do not believe in any such thing, but
they hold open that they might some day encounter some thing that they
both believe exists and believe qualifies as a supernatural being.
As with all human modes of thought, atheism is not exactly rigorous or
perfect. It's approximate. In other words, the systematic ruling out
of all possible gods among the infinity of possible gods is not
humanly possible, though it would make atheism rigorously consistent.
But it can be approximately true, so that when I say I disbelieve in
all beings that could be reasonably described as gods, I don't mean
that makes my position rigorously perfect. It can't be so.
More importantly, they have no even encountered ever human conception
of god. So they can't possibly hold a belief for each of those
concepts that its referent does not exist.
Indeed I believe that all beings that can be described as gods (by
what I understand to be the reasonable definition of the term) do not
exist.
I agree with you, but not every atheist does. Some are perfectly open
to the fact that they might encounter some kind of supernatural being
and they will accept that it exists.
Atheists who make such claims are very rare, and, I believe,
insincere. If they are sincere, they are not atheists, but agnostics,
by the commonly understood definitions of those terms.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
13 Dec 2007 12:43:21 PM |
|
|
On Dec 12, 10:00 pm, wrote:
No. *You* acknowledge a sufficient understand of what "Jehovah" refers
to such that you can believe it exists or doesn't exist. Many atheists
do not.
If one is agnostic about the existence of Jehovah, then the
appropriate term for that is agnostic, not atheist.
You are misusing the term "agnostic" in several different ways. First
of all, one cannot really be an atheist, theist, or agnostic with
respect to particular gods or god concepts. A Christian true believer
is not "atheistic with respect to Zeus", he is simply a theist. It may
be useful in some cases to use the terms this way, but it is not what
they really mean.
A person who was agnostic with respect to Jehovah might still be a
theist if he believed in some other god. He could still be an atheist
if he didn't hold any positive belief with respect to any deity.
In any event, he might not be an agnostic at all because he may argue
that if he could just figure out precisely what you meant by Jehovah,
he could well prove logically that such a thing could not exist. An
agnostic must belief that the existence of god is forever beyond
evidentiary or logical proof.
You can believe that no nonsensical,
meaningless beings exist.
Good lord. Of course I can.
But this is not the same as believing that a particular meaningless,
nonsensical being does not exist. It is simply nonsense to argue that
you have a particular belief about a particular meaningless thing.
A meaningless, nonsensical being clearly does not exist. To pretend
that meaningless, nonsensical fictional characters deserve some sort
of special respect, that they cannot be denied, is political
correctness run amok and doesn't warrant acknowledgment as a
legitimate pov, even if we were to grant (and this would be a huge
concession) that such people are sincere.
Again, you are arguing about particular meaningless, nonsensical
beings. We can definitely say that unicorns don't exist, because they
have attributes we can clearly understand. For example, they have one
horn.
But electrons, poorly described, may seem like meaningless,
nonsensical beings to a rational person who does not know about atomic
structure. He cannot conclude they don't exist though, because he
cannot determine exactly what they are just from the poor description.
To many atheists, "god" is simply poorly described. They genuinely
acknowledge that you might be using the term to refer to something
that is real, they just can't tell because nobody is able to describe
what they mean clearly enough.
You can believe that what other people
describe as god is nonsensical and meaningless, but none of this adds
up to a belief that god doesn't exist.
If I can believe that a nonsensical and meaningless being called "god"
does not exist, then I can indeed believe that "god" does not exist.
Or "fxlplic" if you insist he be so called.
Yes, *you* can. That says nothing about whether other people can.
True, but those people are not properly termed atheists, if they think
as they claim (and I don't believe they really do), except by special
definitions of the term, and I think we can both agree that special
definitions of words are useless definitions, since words are meant to
communicate as transparently as possible, not to act as weird special
codes within, e.g., cliques in USENET newsgroups.
If they don't believe in a god, they're atheists. We don't need
special definitions. A very significant fraction of atheists fall into
this category. It would be kind of crazy to argue that the vast
majority of people who call themselves atheists need to invent a whole
new word to describe their position.
Their position is simply that they can't figure out what people who
talk about god mean. They don't know what "holiness" is or what
"supernatural" means. Nobody can clearly explain it to them. So they
shrug their shoulders. They suspect that nobody knows what these
things mean, but they're not prepared to conclude bad faith on the
part of 95% of the human population.
I am
talking specifically about people who can not believe that god does
not exist because they do not know what you mean by "god".
I think that's a rhetorical, not actual, inability. But even if true,
it would make such people agnostics, not atheists. The two categories
don't overlap.
Wrong for several reasons. The most obvious is that an agnostic must
believe that god's existence cannot be proven. Since they do not know
what you mean by "god", they have no idea whether its existence could
or could not be proven. They are completely open to the possibility
that when and if they figure out what you mean by god, it may become
apparent that such a thing definitively cannot exist.
An agnostic must believe that it is impossible to disprove the
existence of god. This is half of the definition of an agnostic.
They do. There are many of them
Well, since we're indulging in unproven assertions, here's another:
there are very few who believe what you claim many believe.
Google the exact phrase "weak atheism" and tell all those people they
are lying about their beliefs. I admit, it's certainly possible they
are. I think a good percentage of them are really strong atheists who
in fact firmly believe that god does not exist.
However, their claimed position is not self-contradictory or absurd.
I do not even believe you are such
a person.
Nor should you, since I am not one of those people. I believe that I
have a good enough idea what people mean by "god" that I can conclude
that it is sufficiently contradictory to be incapable of existing.
However, not all atheists hold this position. Some honestly claim that
they have no idea what people mean by "god".
Then they are not atheists but agnostics.
Again, you misunderstand agnosticism. Agnostics acknowledge that god
claims cannot be proven or disproven. Weak atheists have no idea
whether or not it's possible to prove or disprove god claims. They
accept that it might be that god claims can be proven, but they
reserve judgment to be made on each individual such claim as soon as
they understand that claim.
I believe that, as a result of some USENET debate you had
in the past, perhaps with a theist, you argued yourself into believing
you need to think this way, for some reason and are confused.
To be clear, the only belief I have stated in this thread is that I
believe that some people honestly do not know what other mean by "god"
with sufficient specificity to hold the belief that no such being
exists. Some of them genuinely believe that if they just could figure
out what things like "holiness" were, they might conclude that such a
thing does exist.
It's not required to understand holiness to disbelieve in, say,
Jehovah, though, so this doesn't make any sense.
I did not say that they needed to understand holiness. I said it might
allow them to conclude that. For example, if you believe that Jehovah
must be holy, and that holiness is self-contradictory, you can
conclude Jehovah does not exist. This is not the only way to reach
that conclusion, but it is one of them. They cannot conclude Jehovah
does not exist in this way because they do not know what holiness is.
You are essentially demanding that an atheist hold an active belief in
the non-existence of a massive array of possible things. Some people
(not me, I assure you) have a very hard time being sure that *no* such
thing could possibly exist.
Atheism isn't certainty. It's belief. Belief and certainty are two
different things. Certainty of universal negatives is logically
impossible, anyway.
I agree with everything but your last sentence. Certainty about many
universal negatives is logically possible -- for example, take the
class of all things that contain two contradictory properties. I can
be absolutely certain that no such things exist.
You are, of course, write that atheism is about belief, not certainty.
However, many atheists simply are not willing to commit to the claim
that nothing a person could possibly claim is a god does not exist.
They're perfectly open to the possibility that some future claim might
be credible.
For example, I do not believe that any life exists outside the planet
Earth. However, it would be a serious error to argue that because of
this, it follows that I don't belief any microscopic life exists on
Venus. I may never have even considered the question of whether
microscopic life exists on Venus.
Similarly, you cannot conclude that someone who has rejected every god
claim they have encountered must believe that Vishnu does not exist.
They do not believe in any such thing, but
they hold open that they might some day encounter some thing that they
both believe exists and believe qualifies as a supernatural being.
As with all human modes of thought, atheism is not exactly rigorous or
perfect. It's approximate. In other words, the systematic ruling out
of all possible gods among the infinity of possible gods is not
humanly possible, though it would make atheism rigorously consistent.
But it can be approximately true, so that when I say I disbelieve in
all beings that could be reasonably described as gods, I don't mean
that makes my position rigorously perfect. It can't be so.
You might say that, and it might very well be true for you. But what
of the person who says they disbelieve in every god concept they
understand, but there are many they have not been able to quite figure
out. They have no idea whether those gods, properly understood, exist
or not.
What of the person who has only encountered a small number of
religions, and rejects them for technical reasons? For example, he
rejects Christianity because he cannot believe a loving god would
condemn a person just for not believing in him. He is open to the fact
that there might be a consistent religious view, but he doesn't know
what it is since he has never found it.
More importantly, they have no even encountered ever human conception
of god. So they can't possibly hold a belief for each of those
concepts that its referent does not exist.
Indeed I believe that all beings that can be described as gods (by
what I understand to be the reasonable definition of the term) do not
exist.
I agree with you, but not every atheist does. Some are perfectly open
to the fact that they might encounter some kind of supernatural being
and they will accept that it exists.
Atheists who make such claims are very rare, and, I believe,
insincere. If they are sincere, they are not atheists, but agnostics,
by the commonly understood definitions of those terms.
I think some of them are insincere. But I think it's a huge leap to
say that all self-described weak atheists are insincere. Frankly, I'd
sooner believe that all theists are insincere.
Again, you misunderstand what agnosticism is. An agnostic must believe
that nothing he would consider to be a god can ever be demonstrated to
exist or to not exist. This is another commitment of the type weak
atheists refuse to make and justify based on the wide variety of
possible claimed gods and the refusal to accept that they must all be
equally valid of invalid.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
13 Dec 2007 02:10:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:00:51 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 12, 4:45 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 4:33 pm, wrote:
Sure, but you don't believe that the nonsensical, meaningless being
fxylplic doesn't exist, because you cannot possess any beliefs about
him/it because you do not know what he/it is.
You can believe that particular nonsensical, meaningless beings do not
exist, such as Santa Claus.
Or Jehovah. Right. So your "fxyplic" example was apples and oranges,
even if I granted your point (which I don't).
No. *You* acknowledge a sufficient understand of what "Jehovah" refers
to such that you can believe it exists or doesn't exist. Many atheists
do not.
If one is agnostic about the existence of Jehovah, then the
appropriate term for that is agnostic, not atheist.
Red herring.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
12 Dec 2007 06:56:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:33:30 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 12, 3:59 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:52 am, wrote:
Then what do you call a person who says, "I have heard all of your
argument supporting the existence of god, and I think that what you
call 'god' is meaningless. I am unable to form any belief about it,
because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me."?
An atheist. Such a person would believe there is no god as
described. The last sentence is self-contradictory.
You are ascribing to that person a belief they have clearly stated
that they do not have. I can believe that unicorns do not exist, since
I know what they would be if they did. But I do not believe that
fxylplics don't exist.
This is a classic atheist view, and encompasses many atheists I know.
They do not "believe there is no god" because they feel the concept
"no god" is as meaningless as the concept "god".
I believe nonsensical, meaningless beings do not exist.
Sure, but you don't believe that the nonsensical, meaningless being
fxylplic doesn't exist, because you cannot possess any beliefs about
him/it because you do not know what he/it is.
You can believe that particular nonsensical, meaningless beings do not
exist, such as Santa Claus.
Or Jehovah. Right. So your "fxyplic" example was apples and oranges,
even if I granted your point (which I don't).
You have to grant it, because whether you like it or not, he is
describing himself.
Just because YOU think you know what the meaningless string "God"
means, that doesn't mean everybody else has to see it your way.
They don't.
And just because you are too stupid to realise this does not mean
their explanations are nonsensical.
What I don't understand, is why you project your "it does / it
doesn't" hangup on everybody else, about what is merely part of
somebody else's religion.
You can believe that no nonsensical,
meaningless beings exist.
Good lord. Of course I can.
You can believe that what other people
describe as god is nonsensical and meaningless, but none of this adds
up to a belief that god doesn't exist.
If I can believe that a nonsensical and meaningless being called "god"
does not exist, then I can indeed believe that "god" does not exist.
Or "fxlplic" if you insist he be so called.
Why do you give the word "God" a meaning such that it can only be
something that does or doesn't exist?
Why can't you let anybody see it as eg a cultural phenomenon in
exactly the same way you really see Santa Claus.
Because even you don't see it in terms of "it doesn't exist" because
you see it as a sort of game you play with the kids. In other words, a
cultural phenomenon.
Just like you have no belief that fxylplic doesn't exist.
Do you need to create some third category for these people? If so, you
will be the only person who doesn't consider them atheists.
I do consider them atheists.
They do not contain any belief that god does not exist. They contain
beliefs that when other people use the word "god", they have no idea
what those other people mean.
I don't believe such people exist. I do not even believe you are such
a person. I believe that, as a result of some USENET debate you had
in the past, perhaps with a theist, you argued yourself into believing
you need to think this way, for some reason and are confused.
You really are an arrogantly nasty piece of work, aren't you? You are
telling me that I do not exist. As well as plenty of other atheists.
Just because in your mind everybody else is marching out of step
except for you.
They could possibly mean something that
does in fact exist, but they cannot tell because nobody is able to
clearly explain what they believe.
A supernatural being that created the heavens and earth, tallies the
fall of each sparrow, and judges the living in the dead at some
unspecified future date does not, I can say with confidence, exist.
Indeed I believe that all beings that can be described as gods (by
what I understand to be the reasonable definition of the term) do not
exist.
So everybody has to have that overly simplistic view?
But it's only that inside the domain of discourse that is
creator-monotheism.
Outside that, it's merely part of somebody else's religion.
The only definitions that are granted by everybody, are the like the
Encarta one:
"the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam,
and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the
universe, worshiped as the only god"
Which clearly shows how the meaning changes between the religion and
the rest of the world.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
12 Dec 2007 03:14:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:52:01 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 11, 3:25 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:07 pm, wrote:
An atheist is someone who has no belief in the existence of a god,
deity, or supernatural being of any kind.
That is a poor definition of an atheist. Someone who is ignorant of
gods and religions is not necessarily an atheist because he has no
belief in gods.
That's the definition of an atheist, someone who has no belief in
gods.
Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist.
No. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. A newborn
has no such belief.
Then what do you call a person who says, "I have heard all of your
argument supporting the existence of god, and I think that what you
call 'god' is meaningless. I am unable to form any belief about it,
because it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me."?
An atheist. Such a person would believe there is no god as
described.
You have been repeatedly corrected on this nonsense definition of
yours.
Why do you persist in repeating it?
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
11 Dec 2007 04:24:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:07:41 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
On Dec 10, 4:57 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined. Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist. If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
(3) Other: Please fill in -
An atheist is someone who has no belief in the existence of a god,
deity, or supernatural being of any kind.
That is a poor definition of an atheist. Someone who is ignorant of
gods and religions is not necessarily an atheist because he has no
belief in gods.
Sigh. It is 100% accurate, and all we have in common.
Whether you like it or not.
Who do we have to keep repeating this several times a day?
And in the same thread?
We are part of the real world outside the theist's limited religious
world view.
And cannot be described accurately by presumptions that are only part
of the theist paradigm because we are outside that.
Why do you want atheists to be something other than what they actually
are?
Normally, it is used to
refer to a person who has been exposed to a few such beliefs and opted
not to believe in any of them. This includes both positive (or strong
or critical) atheism and negative (or weak) atheism.
Technically, a newborn baby is an atheist.
No. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. A newborn
has no such belief.
No, moron. It is somebody who isn't theist. That is an invention based
on presumptions only theists have.
We don't have anything to believe doesn't exist. That is also an
invention based on presumptions only theists have.
We don't have anything to "not know either way". Again that is an
invention based on presumptions only theists have.
We don't even have anything not to believe in. For exactly the same
reason.
We are simply people in the rest of the world outside your religion,
who don't happen to be any kind of theist.
Why do you invent beliefs we don't have, which are emotionally
prejudicial to the point of lies about us?
A newborn is technically atheist because he isn't theist until he is
taught to be.
Plenty of atheists were never taught to be theist and remain in
exactly the same state of not believing as the day they were born.
The only thing that happened the day they discovered theists, was that
the fact "Somebody else believes something got added to the knowledge
base.
Technically, a newborn baby
also doesn't think George Bush should have invaded Iraq.
John
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenny6833A" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
09 Dec 2007 09:10:03 PM |
|
|
On Dec 9, 7:45=EF=BF=BDpm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the ter=
m
"Atheist" is defined.
There you go with that "believe" word.
Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist.
An atheist is a non-theist: a-theism means without-theism.
If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the tw=
o
definitions given below.
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
And there you go again with that "belief" word.
Some who lack theism have concluded that some specific gods don't
exist, perhaps even that all gods so far invented don't exist. That's
a conclusion, however, based on logic and the absense of evidence in
support of a god or gods. It is not a belief in the sense that
theists "believe" in this or that god or gods.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
You seem to have misspelled and improperly capitalized the last word
above.
Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods.
Thank you
Pete
You're welcome
Jenny
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
09 Dec 2007 09:07:32 PM |
|
|
On Dec 9, 8:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods.
Or, if you consider yourself to be an atheist, then
what do you mean when you refer to yourelf as an atheist.
I mean I don't believe in gods.
If you're
uncomfortable with that then perhaps you could choose amoung one of the two
definitions given below
(1) Positive atheism: The belief that that God does not exist.
I'm curious why you think a god named God is somehow special to
atheists.
(2) Negative atheism: The absense of a belief in Gd.
I'm curious why you think a god named Gd is somehow special to
atheists.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A Lollygagger" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
09 Dec 2007 08:53:49 PM |
|
|
On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
09 Dec 2007 09:07:04 PM |
|
|
"A Lollygagger" <lollygagger@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in this
thread. Thank you.
Pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "A Lollygagger" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
09 Dec 2007 09:28:04 PM |
|
|
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in this
thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
10 Dec 2007 12:03:12 PM |
|
|
"A Lollygagger" <lollygagger@live.com> wrote in message
news:3329292a-2fb3-4381-982e-c6033fa01777@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...>
On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in
this
thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
You mean priests? Gotcha.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
10 Dec 2007 12:37:02 AM |
|
|
A Lollygagger <lollygagger@live.com> writes:
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in this
thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
You're almost believable as Nixon: "I am not a crook." (It took the better
part of two decades for that lie to become obvious, but it happened.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Manitoba 3 (December 8)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 12 at Hartford, 6:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
10 Dec 2007 12:48:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:37:02 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
A Lollygagger <lollygagger@live.com> writes:
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in this
thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
You're almost believable as Nixon: "I am not a crook." (It took the better
part of two decades for that lie to become obvious, but it happened.)
It took me 2 seconds to recognize Nixon's assertion as an obvious lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
10 Dec 2007 09:37:04 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:37:02 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
A Lollygagger <lollygagger@live.com> writes:
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in this
thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
You're almost believable as Nixon: "I am not a crook." (It took the better
part of two decades for that lie to become obvious, but it happened.)
It took me 2 seconds to recognize Nixon's assertion as an obvious lie.
That epitaph of his was a few months before I was born, but he managed to
confirm it over the next two decades...along with "you won't have ***** Nixon
to kick around any more". If only he'd actually lived up to that, we might
still have a constitutional government today, which would be preferable to
our long slide down into the Third American Revolution.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Manitoba 3 (December 8)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 12 at Hartford, 6:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
10 Dec 2007 03:38:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:37:04 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:37:02 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
A Lollygagger <lollygagger@live.com> writes:
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe the
term
"Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in this
thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
You're almost believable as Nixon: "I am not a crook." (It took the better
part of two decades for that lie to become obvious, but it happened.)
It took me 2 seconds to recognize Nixon's assertion as an obvious lie.
That epitaph of his was a few months before I was born, but he managed to
confirm it over the next two decades...along with "you won't have ***** Nixon
to kick around any more". If only he'd actually lived up to that, we might
still have a constitutional government today, which would be preferable to
our long slide down into the Third American Revolution.
Won't be long now...
An aside: I love it when the writers of the Sci-fi comedy series Red
Dwarf needed a term for being criminally done over, and came up with:
"You've done a Nixon on me", and "I've been Nixoned!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
10 Dec 2007 08:50:46 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:37:04 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:37:02 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
A Lollygagger <lollygagger@live.com> writes:
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe
the term "Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in
this thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
You're almost believable as Nixon: "I am not a crook." (It took the
better part of two decades for that lie to become obvious, but it
happened.)
It took me 2 seconds to recognize Nixon's assertion as an obvious lie.
That epitaph of his was a few months before I was born, but he managed to
confirm it over the next two decades...along with "you won't have ***** Nixon
to kick around any more". If only he'd actually lived up to that, we might
still have a constitutional government today, which would be preferable to
our long slide down into the Third American Revolution.
Won't be long now...
Probably not...and I'm 1400 miles away from Canada.
An aside: I love it when the writers of the Sci-fi comedy series Red
Dwarf needed a term for being criminally done over, and came up with:
"You've done a Nixon on me", and "I've been Nixoned!"
I was nineteen when he finally bugged out, and it's enough to make me wish
that LBJ had decided to run for a second full term in '68, even if it might
have resulted in him dying in office. (He croaked a couple of days after
Nixon was inaugurated for the second time, in '73.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Manitoba 3 (December 8)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 12 at Hartford, 6:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Definition of "Atheist" |
11 Dec 2007 02:01:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:50:46 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:37:04 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> writes:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:37:02 -0600, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> wrote:
A Lollygagger <lollygagger@live.com> writes:
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
"A Lollygagger" <lollygag...@live.com> wrote in message
news:28979007-c0f6-4101-91b1-4f284c0c0891@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 9, 9:45 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
I would like to ask members of this group to post how they believe
the term "Atheist" is defined.
Atheist = Child Molester
I see no reason to insult atheists so please refrain from doing so in
this thread. Thank you.
Pete
I wasn't insulting atheists.
I was insulting child molesters.
You're almost believable as Nixon: "I am not a crook." (It took the
better part of two decades for that lie to become obvious, but it
happened.)
It took me 2 seconds to recognize Nixon's assertion as an obvious lie.
That epitaph of his was a few months before I was born, but he managed to
confirm it over the next two decades...along with "you won't have ***** Nixon
to kick around any more". If only he'd actually lived up to that, we might
still have a constitutional government today, which would be preferable to
our long slide down into the Third American Revolution.
Won't be long now...
Probably not...and I'm 1400 miles away from Canada.
An aside: I love | | | | | | | | | |
