On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:17:30 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:40:24 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> posted in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:59:58 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> wrote:

Give it up.

Doctor, may I prescripe you 6 Rohypnol and a large glass of vodka?

Growing up might help him too. I've plonked him until then.

He claims to not be a Christian, but he hangs on just as desperately
to the same phony definition of atheism (even including the capital
"A") that so many Christians insist on. Gosh, he couldn't be lying
could he?

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:17:30 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:40:24 +0700, Jos Flachs
<'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> posted in alt.atheism:

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:59:58 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> wrote:

Give it up.

Doctor, may I prescripe you 6 Rohypnol and a large glass of vodka?

Growing up might help him too. I've plonked him until then.

He claims to not be a Christian, but he hangs on just as desperately
to the same phony definition of atheism (even including the capital
"A") that so many Christians insist on. Gosh, he couldn't be lying
could he?

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:46:48 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:

That's a gross oversimplification. While it is a fundamental condition,
NOTHING, not Atheism, Theism, or anything else, belief-wise or not, is as
simple as the lowest common denominator.

There's no "lowest common denominator". Atheism is defined (by
atheists - others don't get to define us) as lack of belief in any god
or gods, so that's what it is.

Admit that you don't have a clue and move on.

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a

consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the

ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a

works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net

On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 08:46:48 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Thomas P." <tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:oqt9ov80kclun9r2nkp922sb288f8o8ivl@4ax.com...

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:23:27 -0400, Doctor Nope
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> wrote:

Thomas P. wrote:

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 06:00:15 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ap6ovsi6gt4g0j5isr88nk5bth40c3kdb@Pern.rk...

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:24:38 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:

Not believing in something, and believing it does NOT exist are 2

different

things.

And atheism is not believing in any god.

And atheism is also believing that there are no gods. An atheist can

believe

either or both.

And some atheists have brown eyes, therefore atheists have brown eyes.
The question is what is the only actual requirement to be an atheist,
and the answer is lack of belief in a god. Everything else is extra.

Most sources I've seen define Atheism as being more inclusive,
encompassing active belief that there is no god, too. Or more simply,
that Atheism can be either lack of belief, belief that none exist, or
both. I've also had folks who consider themselves Atheists argue from
either viewpoint with me, often with both polarities of Atheists arguing
that theirs is the correct definition. It just makes sense to me to
"believe" that Atheism can be either or both. Maybe if in fact, Atheism
doesn't include the belief that god(s) do not exist, someone could come
up with a label for that belief, so we could avoid future confusion.

It is quite simple. What is the one condition that includes all
atheists? Obviously it is non-belief. Therefore all the others are
not required and have just as much relevance as hair color, political
affiliation etc.

That's a gross oversimplification. While it is a fundamental condition,
NOTHING, not Atheism, Theism, or anything else, belief-wise or not, is as
simple as the lowest common denominator.

You have already agreed with me about this.

If you choose to see it that way,

fine. I support your choice. That's sad, because I think we agree on many
points,

It is odd that we agree on what I am saying above. At least you have
said so in other posts but then go right back to denying it.

and that you're nitpicking to find miniscule points we disagree on.
So be it. We shall start defining ourselves by what we disagree on. I like
onions on my pizza, how about you?

Let us look at the facts. Call non-belief in a god "A". Call the
positive belief in no god "B". If we remove "A" the person is no
longer an atheist. If we remove only "B" the person is still an
atheist. As I said, and you agreed, the positive position is extra
just like hair color or political affiliation. I have no idea why you
keep arguing when you have, in fact, agreed that you were wrong.

Thomas P.

"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long

pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools

of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single

boat, today even children refuse to believe."

Juvenal

Thomas P.

"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."

Juvenal

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:04:39 GMT, "Doctor Nope"
<doctor_nope@hotmail.com> posted in alt.atheism:

In my original post, to which Mr. Klein responded, I pointed out that

equally unprovable that there is or isn't a

Since shifting the burden is a logical fallacy, I chose to ignore your
lack or familiarity with logic.

The original poster's point was that no one has proved they do exist.

Which is true. Which is also irrefutable.

I also pointed out that believing they don't exist is as much an act of

belief that they do.

Which has nothing to do with not believing that they exist.

Neither the original poster nor I, mentioned the matter
of simply not believing in it/them/whatever.

"No one has proved they do exist" is *NOT* the same as belief that
they don't.

Mr. Klein responded to something that was not written, i.e. simple

disproved what I was saying.

Okay - I'll amend what I said. "No proof of an existentially negative
assertion is required, contrary to your implication."

Happy now?

I simply reasserted my original point in the post to which you are

Repeating an irrelevant assertion doesn't make it relative.

What you did do was act as if the person you were responding to said
something he did not say.

Mr. Klein did that to me by implying that "not believing requires zero
faith" somehow refutes the fact that "'believing things don't exist'
requires faith".

No, I merely pointed out to you that "'believing things don't exist'
requires faith" has nothing to do with proving that they exist.
(Proving that they don't exist is an illogical request.)

I was reasserting my original point in my original post.

Which, being irrelevant to reality, was useless, and not what I was
referring to.

I didn't say his point was wrong, it's just a different concept than I

talking about.

You were talking about an entirely illogical concept. I chose to
ignore it. Are you happier now that I've pointed it out to you?

They're not mutually exclusive. He seems to think they are.

A request for proof of an existentially negative assertion is
irrelevant to anything, so it's mutually exclusive with regard to
reality.

Next time, try learning logic before arguing it. That way you'll look
less unintelligent.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from

conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net