| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Niels van der Linden" |
| Date: |
19 May 2005 04:01:03 PM |
| Object: |
Getting tired of it |
Who here's getting tired of all of it?
Considering a big bang and a universe such as ours, the following are
natural (or 'normal'):
Forming of stars, planets, moons, solar systems, galaxies, etc., their
'lifetimes' and their 'deaths'.
Thinking things are static in the universe is utterly false. It's as dynamic
as it can possibly get. Just considering the lives the planets in our solar
system have behind them is amazing.
If you look at our cozy planet, life appeared very fast (relatively) after
it's creation. Mars has also gone through a moderate state and some moons of
Jupiter are reveiling things that give extraterrestrial-life scientists wet
dreams round the clock. Mass extinctions are also a common thing on our
planet. We have multiple recordings of such. The only thing that makes us
special is that we might actually see it coming.
The appearance of intelligent life also seems inevitable. Once an animal
comes along that incidentally has limbs that were used for something else
before, but with a slight modification can use things as tools and even
modify them, and also has an apt for communication, the path to ... sapien
(knowing ...) seems like a walk in the park.
Now what about religion? Well, I don't think there has ever been a culture
without it. How hard is it to grasp? When you don't understand the largest
part of things happening in your every day, of course you invent stuff to
attribute it to. We do it *all the time*.
However;
Today, we understand the things happening in our every day, we understand
how religions naturally appeared, we understand the rising of intelligent
life and the natural occurence of life on a planet, the natural lifetimes of
planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you can just realize
that, we can try to work together on this cozy little planet of ours.
Niels
.
|
|
| User: "John McKendry" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
21 May 2005 07:32:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 20:25:15 +0200, Niels van der Linden wrote:
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife,
there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you can just realize
that, we can try to work together on this cozy little planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm afraid your
starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is better than
belief.
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding this
ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the Truth(tm).
Beliefs are virusses of the mind, which by definition are footing-less:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml
The proof of this is by repeated assertion, it seems.
Dawkins may be a formidable biologist, and he may be a Distinguished
Professor, but as a theologian he is an ill-informed amateur. He doesn't
like religion, which is fine, but he believes his dislike is founded
in scientific objectivity rather than emotion, and in this he is fooling
himself. He thinks, as do Creationists, that evolution is a religious
issue, and that the value of science can be measured by its moral
consequences. He quote-mines the most scandalously antirationalist
of the early Church Fathers, Tertullian, and he takes Jim Jones and
his followers as representative of 'religious faith'. He ridicules
the doctrine of Transubstantiation with a naive plain-meaning argument
worthy of a twelve-year-old. Dawkins' assaults on religion are the
mirror image of Ray Martinez' assaults on science; they both believe
that science can rule out the existence of God, and they only differ
on whether or not this is a good thing.
For Dawkins, faith is never anything more than superstition and
comforting ritual, suitable for those benighted souls lacking the
emotional self-sufficiency and intellectual tough-mindedness
to face a universe without meaning and without a Father God
who cares about their individual existence and well-being. This
is profoundly and gratuitously insulting, and scientifically
ill-founded as well.
I don't have any religious beliefs about God. I don't feel I know
what the word "God" means, but I like Tillich's (I think; I'm not
going to track it down) definition, "God is the ground of being",
and Nicholas of Cusa's, "God is that which lies beyond the union
of opposites". To the best of my understanding, God is one
possible answer to the question "why is there something rather
than nothing?". I don't happen to find it a satisfactory
answer, myself; I'd rather have the question.
But I know a number of very smart people who believe in God,
and all of them recognize the truth of the Big Bang, and evolution,
and all those things that believers are supposed to be protecting
their minds from. When they say "God" they mean Einstein's God,
the mysterious order of the Universe, not a God who watches over
them and cares about them. "God" means they recognize that some
questions are not the kind of question that science can answer,
but they wonder about those questions anyway. Like "Why is there
something?" Cosmology and physics can answer 'Why" questions to
a certain extent, sure. Why are there atoms? Because quarks and
leptons, and electric charge, and so forth. Why is the charge
on an electron precisely the same magnitude as the charge on
a proton? Well, um. Why doesn't the electron in a hydrogen atom
go spinning into the proton? The laws of physics prevent it.
Why are the laws of physics what they are? They just are.
So one person says "they just are", one person says "God". Are
the people who say "God" really just reciting a comforting fairy
tale they learned as children? Not the people I know. They don't
expect to go to Heaven. They don't generally pray, and those who
do don't expect an answer. They don't imagine they're God's
favorite person. But somehow they find the word "God" useful
as the name for some kind of order, some kind of explanation that
transcends the partial quarks-and-leptons kind of explanation
that science provides.
I don't see anything in Dawkins' essay that accounts for this
kind of religion. I don't see any evidence that Dawkins even
knows that this kind of religion exists. And I don't see any
evidence that Dawkins knows anything about those religious
people who hear the voice of God calling for justice and
compassion. You already know some of the names: Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. But those are only the famous
ones. These were not weak-minded children taking solace in a
fairy-tale God; no atheist's reality could be more demanding and
unforgiving than the reality they confronted. Where do they fit
in Dawkins' epidemiology?
Atheism is a lack of god-virusses.
The word has so many definitions and nuances that it's practically
useless to say "atheism is <fill in the blank>", but this definition
has a self-congratulatory and anti-religious flavor that frankly makes
me question whether I would want to be a member of your club.
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect
Respect your children, by not telling them evidence-less things as truths,
and instead learning them to think for themselves.
http://www.pclips.com/storage/grampafishing_lg.png
Niels
I have one son, and I have raised him as well as I know how. I have
taught him to question authority, and I have backed him up when he does.
I've taught him not to hate, because hate is fear and fear makes you
stupid. I've taught him to give money to panhandlers and not worry how
they're going to spend it, to believe that people are doing the best they
can, and to be polite even to people you don't like, because those things
make the world a better place for everyone to live in. I've taught him
it's good to be skeptical, not so good to be cynical. And I've taught
him to read books and look at things and ask questions and learn as much
as he can about everything, because the universe is a puzzle that exists
to be understood.
I don't have evidence for any of those things. I take them on faith. On
the science-religion axis, they are religious beliefs. But as far as I
can see, there's nothing there that conflicts with the practice of science.
If you want to rid the world of childish superstition and unreasoning
fear, it would be best to begin by identifying your allies and your
opponents correctly.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
23 May 2005 09:42:41 AM |
|
|
I have one son, and I have raised him as well as I know how. <
I have taught him to question authority, and I have backed him up when he
does. <
Why? Pure faith or reasoning included?
I've taught him not to hate, because hate is fear and fear makes you
stupid. <
I've taught him to give money to panhandlers and not worry how they're
going to spend it, <
Why? Pure faith or reasoning included?
to believe that people are doing the best they can, and to be polite even
to people you don't like, because those things make the world a better
place for everyone to live in. <
I've taught him it's good to be skeptical, not so good to be cynical. <
Why? Pure faith or reasoning included?
And I've taught him to read books and look at things and ask questions and
learn as much as he can about everything, because the universe is a puzzle
that exists to be understood. <
For one thing, you've learning him to question authority; although you
haven't included why (here). If you have succeeded, he'll even question
yours. That would be a great thing.
Another great thing is including reasoning behind statements/claims.
Benefits are: understanding of a greater/underlying aspect | reasoning can
be criticised&falsified | if you yourself can't get to the reasoning,
there's likely something wrong or misinterpreted or misrepresented about it
| it's the only way of getting a child to do anything once they hit puberty,
and for good reason!
If you don't have a reasoning or evidence for things, make this clear. This
is by far the biggest mistakes theists make. They teach children things as
truths, even though they are evidence-less.
Niels
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
22 May 2005 09:21:02 PM |
|
|
Beliefs are virusses of the mind, which by definition are footing-less:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.shtml
The proof of this is by repeated assertion, it seems.
Dawkins may be a formidable biologist, and he may be a Distinguished
Professor, but as a theologian he is an ill-informed amateur. He doesn't
like religion, which is fine, but he believes his dislike is founded
in scientific objectivity rather than emotion, and in this he is fooling
himself. He thinks, as do Creationists, that evolution is a religious
issue, and that the value of science can be measured by its moral
consequences. He quote-mines the most scandalously antirationalist
of the early Church Fathers, Tertullian, and he takes Jim Jones and
his followers as representative of 'religious faith'. He ridicules
the doctrine of Transubstantiation with a naive plain-meaning argument
worthy of a twelve-year-old. Dawkins' assaults on religion are the
mirror image of Ray Martinez' assaults on science; they both believe
that science can rule out the existence of God, and they only differ
on whether or not this is a good thing.
I'm quoting a paper; I find it more interesting to discuss the contents than
the author.
For Dawkins, faith is never anything more than superstition and
comforting ritual, suitable for those benighted souls lacking the
emotional self-sufficiency and intellectual tough-mindedness
to face a universe without meaning and without a Father God
who cares about their individual existence and well-being. This
is profoundly and gratuitously insulting, and scientifically
ill-founded as well.
Why do you find it insulting? I myself am perfectly able to admit that I too
was a host for a virus of the mind. Two simple facts form the general idea:
humans don't (/didn't) understand the world and fill (filled) in the blanks
& a child's mind sokes up information at young age (like language, culture,
etc).
I don't have any religious beliefs about God. I don't feel I know
what the word "God" means, but I like Tillich's (I think; I'm not
going to track it down) definition, "God is the ground of being",
and Nicholas of Cusa's, "God is that which lies beyond the union
of opposites". To the best of my understanding, God is one
possible answer to the question "why is there something rather
than nothing?". I don't happen to find it a satisfactory
answer, myself; I'd rather have the question.
But I know a number of very smart people who believe in God,
and all of them recognize the truth of the Big Bang, and evolution,
and all those things that believers are supposed to be protecting
their minds from. When they say "God" they mean Einstein's God,
the mysterious order of the Universe, not a God who watches over
them and cares about them. "God" means they recognize that some
questions are not the kind of question that science can answer,
but they wonder about those questions anyway. Like "Why is there
something?" Cosmology and physics can answer 'Why" questions to
a certain extent, sure. Why are there atoms? Because quarks and
leptons, and electric charge, and so forth. Why is the charge
on an electron precisely the same magnitude as the charge on
a proton? Well, um. Why doesn't the electron in a hydrogen atom
go spinning into the proton? The laws of physics prevent it.
Why are the laws of physics what they are? They just are.
So one person says "they just are", one person says "God". Are
the people who say "God" really just reciting a comforting fairy
tale they learned as children? Not the people I know. They don't
expect to go to Heaven. They don't generally pray, and those who
do don't expect an answer. They don't imagine they're God's
favorite person. But somehow they find the word "God" useful
as the name for some kind of order, some kind of explanation that
transcends the partial quarks-and-leptons kind of explanation
that science provides.
You seem to describe a personal experience/view in stead of an organized,
dogmatized religion.
I don't see anything in Dawkins' essay that accounts for this
kind of religion.
Dawkins is describing virusses of the mind. What you described isn't such,
except possibly for your first sentence:
"But I know a number of very smart people who believe in God [..]"
Which does not sound the thing you latter described. If I need to explain
this, say so.
I don't see any evidence that Dawkins even
knows that this kind of religion exists.
Likely because that isn't what he is combatting.
And I don't see any
evidence that Dawkins knows anything about those religious
people who hear the voice of God calling for justice and
compassion. You already know some of the names: Gandhi, Martin
Luther King, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. But those are only the famous
ones. These were not weak-minded children taking solace in a
fairy-tale God; no atheist's reality could be more demanding and
unforgiving than the reality they confronted. Where do they fit
in Dawkins' epidemiology?
Explain yourself more clear please.
Atheism is a lack of god-virusses.
The word has so many definitions and nuances that it's practically
useless to say "atheism is <fill in the blank>", but this definition
has a self-congratulatory and anti-religious flavor that frankly makes
me question whether I would want to be a member of your club.
It seems you are not getting what virusses of the mind mean. Atheists don't
have the answer to every science question (duh); they too experience "the
mysterious order of the Universe". However, they do not suffer from
god-virusses; meaning virusses of the mind (read the article), of the
supernatural-kind.
Niels
PS I'll answer to your second part tomorrow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Moran" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
23 May 2005 06:08:35 AM |
|
|
Michael Ruse has criticized Dawkins, and other, for their militant
atheism. According to Ruse, scientist like Dawkins make it more
difficult to reach accommodation with the Creationists. Recently
Dylan Evans, a British Professor of robotics, joined Ruse in
condemning Dawkins and his ilk.
In today's column Salman Rushdie defends Dawkins and criticizes Ruse
and Evans. Rushdie also attacks intelligent design. Here's a link to
Rushdie's column, "Just give me that old-time atheism," in The Toronto
Star ...
http://tinyurl.com/7ka2y
"And in America, the battle over the teaching of intelligent
design in U.S. schools is reaching crunch time, as the
American Civil Liberties Union prepares to take on intelligent
-design proponents in a Pennsylvania court.
It seems inconceivable that better behaviour on the part of
the world's great scientists, of the sort that Ruse would
prefer, would persuade these forces to back down.
Intelligent design, an idea designed backward so as to force
the antique idea of a Creator upon the beauty of creation, is
so thoroughly rooted in pseudoscience, so full of false logic,
so easy to attack that a little rudeness seems called for."
Salman Rushdie
I agree that a little rudeness is entirely appropriate.
Larry Moran
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 09:45:43 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,... Until they do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs - I'd
rather fight!
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 12:25:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,... Until they do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs - I'd
rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times over, and
if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to people like me, who
live, work, respect and love people of faith. In other words, you're being
a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****, just as bad as the people you seem
to want to fight. You're just a Fundie of a different stripe.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 05:41:46 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qt5q.8sb.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
little planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to force their mythology into science classes, until they quit
trying to pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading
their hatred, descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,...
Until they do these things, I see no reason to respect them or their
beliefs - I'd rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times over,
and if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to people like
me, who live, work, respect and love people of faith. In other words,
you're being a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****, just as bad as
the people you seem to want to fight. You're just a Fundie of a
different stripe.
So, you'd rather not support lawsuits prohibiting the exhibition of the
10 commandments in public places, you'd rather not support lawsuits
prohibiting the use of "under god" in the Pledge of Alligence, you'd
rather not speak out against the teaching of creationism or ID in science
classes,...
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
21 May 2005 12:35:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 May 2005 22:41:46 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qt5q.8sb.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
little planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to force their mythology into science classes, until they quit
trying to pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading
their hatred, descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,...
Until they do these things, I see no reason to respect them or their
beliefs - I'd rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times over,
and if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to people like
me, who live, work, respect and love people of faith. In other words,
you're being a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****, just as bad as
the people you seem to want to fight. You're just a Fundie of a
different stripe.
So, you'd rather not support lawsuits prohibiting the exhibition of the
10 commandments in public places, you'd rather not support lawsuits
prohibiting the use of "under god" in the Pledge of Alligence, you'd
rather not speak out against the teaching of creationism or ID in science
classes,...
That's not what I said at all. There are even many religious folk that
disagree with that nonsense. But when you become a proselytizing
anti-religious zealot, you are left with damn few friends.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
21 May 2005 09:08:00 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8ti5s.ad6.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 22:41:46 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qt5q.8sb.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl>
wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
little planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in
God is better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should
the belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a
lack of belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for
gods (or Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they
quit trying to force their mythology into science classes, until
they quit trying to pass laws based on their myths, until they quit
spreading their hatred, descrimination and bias against
gays/atheists/etc.,... Until they do these things, I see no reason
to respect them or their beliefs - I'd rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times
over, and if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to
people like me, who live, work, respect and love people of faith.
In other words, you're being a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****,
just as bad as the people you seem to want to fight. You're just a
Fundie of a different stripe.
So, you'd rather not support lawsuits prohibiting the exhibition of
the 10 commandments in public places, you'd rather not support
lawsuits prohibiting the use of "under god" in the Pledge of
Alligence, you'd rather not speak out against the teaching of
creationism or ID in science classes,...
That's not what I said at all. There are even many religious folk
that disagree with that nonsense. But when you become a proselytizing
anti-religious zealot, you are left with damn few friends.
Well, then you didn't understand what I said.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MJSD" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 01:55:58 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qt5q.8sb.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to force their mythology into science classes, until they quit
trying to pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading
their hatred, descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,...
Until they do these things, I see no reason to respect them or their
beliefs - I'd rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times over,
and if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to people like
me, who live, work, respect and love people of faith.
There's nothing wrong with saying that the Christian Right's political
agenda needs to be challenged. After all, there are religious minorities
in the United States as well as atheists who benefit from having a
religiously neutral public sphere. Our country doesn't respect the
establishment of any one religion, regardless of how big the majority is.
There is a reason for that, and I encourage you to understand it.
In other words,
you're being a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****, just as bad as
the people you seem to want to fight. You're just a Fundie of a
different stripe.
To suggest that people should be left alone? "People of Faith" does not
exclusively suggest Christian Fundamentalists. There are people of faith
who don't want to convert others to their religion, and these people are
much more likely to play by the rules. There is no "war on people of
faith", there is only a backlash against evangelical Christians who want
to preach to other peoples' children while they're trapped in their desks
in America's public schools.
After all, it isn't American Muslims who want Koranic Sutras taught in
school- they wouldn't dare. Likewise it isn't Tibetan-American Buddhists
who want to drone their meditative mantras during Homeroom Study Period.
Not even the Scientologists would demand that their ideas receive equal
treatment in biology class. No, only the Christians are that intolerant.
So why should we respect them for their "faith" when every other faith
sees fit to leave people alone?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 12:20:26 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels v an der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl>
wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should
the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack
of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying
to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their
hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/et c.,... Until they
do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs -
I'd
rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times
over, and
if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to people like
me, who
live, work, respect and love people of faith. In other words, you're
being
a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****, just as bad as the people you
seem
to want to fight. You're just a Fundie of a different stripe.
Very persuasive. Besides your unilateral name-calling, I
notice you made some assertions (for example: "Except
that atheism is on no better footing than theism.") that
when challenged you didn't bother to support and some
assumptions ("this ludicrous desire to convert everyone
to...") that likewise went unsupported. Regardless, I
was just wondering, is yours the good kind of fundy
intollerance and his the bad kind?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
21 May 2005 12:32:49 AM |
|
|
On 20 May 2005 10:20:26 -0700,
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels v an der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl>
wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should
the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack
of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying
to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their
hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/et c.,... Until they
do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs -
I'd
rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times
over, and
if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to people like
me, who
live, work, respect and love people of faith. In other words, you're
being
a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****, just as bad as the people you
seem
to want to fight. You're just a Fundie of a different stripe.
Very persuasive. Besides your unilateral name-calling, I
notice you made some assertions (for example: "Except
that atheism is on no better footing than theism.") that
when challenged you didn't bother to support and some
assumptions ("this ludicrous desire to convert everyone
to...") that likewise went unsupported. Regardless, I
was just wondering, is yours the good kind of fundy
intollerance and his the bad kind?
From a purely scientific point of view, atheism is no more falsifiable than
theism. I find you fine folk over on the atheism groups tend to be
frustrated individuals who have this insane desire to plant your foot on
other folks faces, doing no good, but showing a rather unhealthy antisocial
streak.
I'm the kind of atheist that would prefer not to give a ***** what you or
anyone else believes, and would just like to go about living my life.
--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
21 May 2005 01:25:57 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 20 May 2005 10:20:26 -0700,
Del <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:45:43 GMT,
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels v an der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl>
wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should
the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack
of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying
to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their
hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/et c.,... Until they
do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs -
I'd
rather fight!
And then, I'm afraid, you'll lose. They outnumber us many times
over, and
if you wish to fight fire with fire, you'll do harm to people like
me, who
live, work, respect and love people of faith. In other words, you're
being
a selfish, small-minded arrogant *****, just as bad as the people you
seem
to want to fight. You're just a Fundie of a different stripe.
Very persuasive. Besides your unilateral name-calling, I
notice you made some assertions (for example: "Except
that atheism is on no better footing than theism.") that
when challenged you didn't bother to support and some
assumptions ("this ludicrous desire to convert everyone
to...") that likewise went unsupported. Regardless, I
was just wondering, is yours the good kind of fundy
intollerance and his the bad kind?
From a purely scientific point of view, atheism is no more falsifiable than
theism.
Science is not about making things "falsifiable." If you knew what
science was (and it's evident that you do not), then you'd know this.
I find you fine folk over on the atheism groups tend to be
frustrated individuals who have this insane desire to plant your foot on
other folks faces, doing no good, but showing a rather unhealthy antisocial
streak.
And for theists who have this insane desire to come to alt.atheism and
plant their foot on atheists' faces, doing no good, but showing a rather
unhealhty antisocial streak?
I'm the kind of atheist that would prefer not to give a ***** what you or
anyone else believes, and would just like to go about living my life.
And if you could no longer "go about living your life" because of laws
passed by theists? What if they made atheism illegal and, therefore,
you'd be thrown in jail?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 10:04:43 PM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their
hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,... Until they do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs - I'd
rather fight!
--
Woden
.....
Mirriam-Web's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." By definition, atheism is the presence of belief, not its
absence (as in skepticism). Ergo, your statement, "Why should the
belief in myths and superstition be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief ...," lacks sense. -Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 05:39:39 PM |
|
|
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1116558283.408645.306660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their
hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,... Until they do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs - I'd
rather fight!
--
Woden
....
Mirriam-Web's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." By definition, atheism is the presence of belief, not its
absence (as in skepticism). Ergo, your statement, "Why should the
belief in myths and superstition be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief ...," lacks sense. -Dylan
So, you equate a lack of belief in the reality of Thor or Zeus or Mickey
Mouse or Anakin Skywalker... to the lack of belief in their reality based
on their mythical and fictional origins? I'm betting you won't accept
this because as a believer, you don't consider your god to be the same as
these other fictional characters; you think that your god is some special
case.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
26 May 2005 11:46:40 AM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
So, you equate a lack of belief in the reality of Thor or Zeus or Mickey
Mouse or Anakin Skywalker...
But Anakin Skywalker *exists*!!! I saw him on TV yesterday!
I have no way to prove that an unreasonable entity exists or does not
exist, because proof itself is based on reasoning. Therefore, I think it
might be problematic to try and prove (or disprove) the existence of
something that created logic *using* logic...
It's just a question of vocabulary: all people who describe themselves
as atheist (or theist, or agnostic or skeptic) do not have exactly the
same belief. I think each definition has to be completed by one's own
explanation. The dictionary is just there to set a consensus. If you
don't like that consensus, propose another one! You need:
a word for somebody who believes God exists
a word for somebody who believes God does not exist
a word for somebody who doesn't know if God exists and then
a word to describe someone who doesn't know and thinks we cannot know
a word to describe someone who doesn't know and thinks we can
So five words in all, each of which have to be completed by a more
detailed description for each individual (prefarably not in
contradiction with what preceeds..)
For my part, I use (respectively) theist, atheist, agnostic, skeptic,
non-skeptic.
Am I missing out on something?
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hudson" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
26 May 2005 11:59:22 AM |
|
|
Deimos wrote:
Woden wrote:
So, you equate a lack of belief in the reality of Thor or Zeus or Mickey
Mouse or Anakin Skywalker...
But Anakin Skywalker *exists*!!! I saw him on TV yesterday!
I have no way to prove that an unreasonable entity exists or does not
exist, because proof itself is based on reasoning. Therefore, I think it
might be problematic to try and prove (or disprove) the existence of
something that created logic *using* logic...
It's just a question of vocabulary: all people who describe themselves
as atheist (or theist, or agnostic or skeptic) do not have exactly the
same belief. I think each definition has to be completed by one's own
explanation. The dictionary is just there to set a consensus. If you
don't like that consensus, propose another one! You need:
a word for somebody who believes God exists
a word for somebody who believes God does not exist
a word for somebody who doesn't know if God exists and then
a word to describe someone who doesn't know and thinks we cannot know
a word to describe someone who doesn't know and thinks we can
So five words in all, each of which have to be completed by a more
detailed description for each individual (prefarably not in
contradiction with what preceeds..)
For my part, I use (respectively) theist, atheist, agnostic, skeptic,
non-skeptic.
Am I missing out on something?
Those who think "God" exists but is not a personality: deist (e.g.,
"God of Spinoza")
Those who think the entire question of whether God exists is silly and
unimportant (usually lumped in with Agnostics).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deimos" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
26 May 2005 12:27:07 PM |
|
|
Bill Hudson wrote:
Those who think "God" exists but is not a personality: deist (e.g.,
"God of Spinoza")
Well they believe God exists so I put them in a subcategory of the
"theist box".
Those who think the entire question of whether God exists is silly and
unimportant (usually lumped in with Agnostics).
Granted, forgot those. i'll call them "the beer guys". I'm actually one
of them at times.
Deimos.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd Maniac" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 10:29:40 AM |
|
|
Mirriam-Web's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." By definition, atheism is the presence of belief, not its
absence (as in skepticism). Ergo, your statement, "Why should the
belief in myths and superstition be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief ...," lacks sense. -Dylan
You can repost this as many times as you like, fella.. It will be no
truer the last time you do then it was the first.
We are atheist. We get to define ourselves.
Not you.
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 10:11:25 PM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footing than Santaism. Why should the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual respect, discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they quit
trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their
hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,... Until they do
these things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs - I'd
rather fight!
--
Woden
....
Mirriam-Web's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." By definition, atheism is the presence of belief, not its
absence (as in skepticism). Ergo, your statement, "Why should the
belief in myths and superstition be considered equivalent to a lack of
belief ...," lacks sense. -Dylan
Therefore, if one gets all his information from one source, he is
pulling a Dan Rather or Newsweek...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd Maniac" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 10:31:11 AM |
|
|
Therefore, if one gets all his information from one source, he is
pulling a Dan Rather or Newsweek..
Or a smug fundy..
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 10:43:43 AM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl>
wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If
you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
littl e
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
And a-Santaism is on no better footi ng than Santaism. Why should
the
belief in myths and superstions be considered equivalent to a lack
of
belief due to the complete and utter lack of evidence for gods (or
Santa)?
I think a better place to start is from mutual r espect,
discarding
this ludicrous desire to convert everyone to your version of the
Truth(tm).
Why should I respect those suffering from delusions of gods? Until
they
quit trying to force their god myths on others, until they qu it
trying to
force their mythology into science classes, until they quit trying
to
pass laws based on their myths, until they quit spreading their
hatred,
descrimination and bias against gays/atheists/etc.,... Until they
do
thes e things, I see no reason to respect them or their beliefs -
I'd
rather fight!
--
Woden
....
Mirriam-Web's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." By definition, atheism is the presence of belief, not its
absence (as in skepticism). Ergo, your statement, "Why should the
belief in myths and superstition be considered equivalent to a lack
of
belief ...," lacks sense. -Dylan
LOL! Is this your faith statement? -Del
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dylan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 09:58:46 PM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
.....
Mirriam-Webster's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." Ergo, atheism is belief, not the absence of belief. -Dylan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 05:35:26 PM |
|
|
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1116557926.911774.159840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
....
Mirriam-Webster's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." Ergo, atheism is belief, not the absence of belief. -Dylan
That is one of many definitions of "atheist". But without arguing about
minute semantic variations, my question remains. Why should belief in
myths and superstions be given the same respect as skeptical lack of
belief based on the complete and utter lack of evidence for any gods?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 08:57:58 AM |
|
|
"Dylan" <desertmountainholy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116557926.911774.159840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
....
Mirriam-Webster's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." Ergo, atheism is belief, not the absence of belief. -Dylan
Oh jeeze, this crap again? <shakes head sadly>
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd Maniac" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 10:27:14 AM |
|
|
Mirriam-Webster's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." Ergo, atheism is belief, not the absence of belief. -Dylan
No. Atheism is a lack of belief in god.
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
19 May 2005 10:09:05 PM |
|
|
Dylan wrote:
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.vanderlinden@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
....
Mirriam-Webster's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is no
deity." Ergo, atheism is belief, not the absence of belief. -Dylan
The above amazes me for two reasons.
1) That people that pull out the above cannot spell "Merriam-Webster"
for the life of them.
2) That people that pull out the above simply are cherry picking the
dictionary like they do the Bible.
Dylan, please do research before you talk. It makes you look like an idiot.
Here, I'll help, because you're obviously a lazy idiot:
American Heritage:
atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
WordNet:
atheist: someone who denies the existence of god
Wikipedia:
Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of
actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Atheism is, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs
in God or spiritual beings.
There. Your homework done for you. That'll be $5.00. Please e-mail me
your credit card number so that I can go ahead and charge you for the
work I've done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 11:21:01 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Dylan wrote:
Woden wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:slrnd8qc1t.78d.mightymartianca@strawberry.fields.forever:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 23:01:03 +0200,
Niels van der Linden <n.f.l.van derlinden@student.utwente.nl>
wrote:
<snip>
Now can we please put the silly religions behind us. There is no
afterlife, there is no heaven or hell, no creator, no god. If you
can
just realize that, we can try to work together on this cozy
little
planet of ours.
Except that atheism is on no better footing than theism. I'm
afraid
your starting from the position that somehow disbelief in God is
better than belief.
....
Mirriam-Webster's 11th: atheist : "one who believes that there is
no
deity." Ergo, atheism is belief, not the absence of belief. -Dylan
The above amazes me for two reasons.
1) That people that pull out the above cannot spe ll
"Merriam-Webster"
for the life of them.
2) That people that pull out the above simply are cherry picking the
dictionary like they do the Bible.
And it is a form of the appeal to authority logical fallacy to cherry
pick an expert opinion that agrees with you and cite it as definitive.
Dylan, please do research before you talk. It makes you look like an
idiot.
Here, I'll he lp, because you're obviously a lazy idiot:
I agree that it makes him _look_ like just another of a
long line of smug idiot trolls who have the
overwhelming need to attempt to drag atheism down
to their level: "You see? Atheism is a belief just like
my religion is." But it might be a mistake, a blunder
borne of haste. It's possible, right?
American Heritage:
atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
WordNet:
atheist: someone who denies the existence of god
Wikipedia:
Atheism is the state either of bei ng without theistic beliefs, or of
actively disbelieving in the existence of deities.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Atheism is, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical
beliefs
in God or spiritual beings.
Leave us include some others.
"The atheist does not say 'there is no God,' but he says
'I know not what you mean by God; I am without the
idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying
no clear or distinct affirmation.' ... The Bible God I
deny; the Christian God I disbelieve in; but I am not
rash enough to say there is no God as long as you tell
me you are unprepared to define God to me."
-- Charles Bradlaugh, "A Plea for Atheism", 1864
"Well-known atheists of the past such as Baron d'Holback
(1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell
(1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Ann Besant
(1877) have assumed or have explicitly characterized
atheism in the negative sense of absence of belief in
God." --- Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical
Justification p. 463
Antony Flew, in 'The Presumption of Atheism'
(1972), understands an atheist as someone who is not
a theist.
Gordon Stein in _An Anthology of Atheism and
Rationalism_ (1980), says an atheist 'is a person
*without* a belief in God.'
The pamphlet entitled 'American Atheists: An Introduction'
says an atheist 'has no belief system' concerning
supernatural agencies.
Furthermore, just as in communist countries, where
the articles on capitalism, democracy, politics,
etc., are always written by communists and from
the communist point of view, so in Christian
dominated societies, such as the United States, the
articles on atheism, rationalism, freethought, etc.,
that are to be found in encyclopedias and other
reference books, are frequently written by theologians,
and from the Christian point of view.
The article on atheism in the Encyclopedia
Britannica was written by a Roman Catholic
Jesuit Priest, Rev. Cornello Fabro, Professor
of theoretical Philosophy, University of Perugia,
Italy.
In the Encyclopedia Americana the article on
Atheism was written by Roger L. Shinn,
a professor at Union Theological Seminary.
sero@rogerswave.ca in
<356D4DFB.C6AB6EF0@rogerswave.ca>writes:
"I have a 1952 set of the American Peoples'
Encyclopedia (gift from my grandparents) and a
1996 Compton's Encyclopedia CD-ROM.
Both of them devote maybe one or two paragraphs
to atheism. The first set has the article written
by a _Episcopal bishop_. "
Microsoft Word 4 for Macintosh had in its
thesaurus "immoral" as a synonym for "atheist"
It seems that religion, like Communism, can
survive only when it can control the information
about conflicting beliefs.
There. Your homework done for you. That'll be $5.00. Please e-mail
me
your credit card number so that I can go ahead and charge you for the
work I've done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Niels van der Linden" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
20 May 2005 12:38:40 PM |
|
|
Microsoft Word 4 for Macintosh had in its
thesaurus "immoral" as a synonym for "atheist"
Whoa!
Come to think of it, "Microsoft" seems a better synonym for "immoral"
Niels
.
|
|
|
| User: "Syd Maniac" |
|
| Title: Re: Getting tired of it |
24 May 2005 10:38:51 AM |
|
|
Come to think of it, "Microsoft" seems a better synonym for "immoral"
Niels
Nahh.. "Microsoft" is synonymous for "Evil Empire"...
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
