| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"abc123" |
| Date: |
23 Jul 2004 10:09:11 PM |
| Object: |
going further than atheism |
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 04:33:15 PM |
|
|
(abc123) writes:
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality?
Philosophical naturalist.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 12:04:04 PM |
|
|
(abc123) wrote in message news:<86ce9fd7.0407231909.70fe17e2@posting.google.com>...
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
I think you are looking for the word "materialst".
However a materialist (I am one) does not reject "spirituality".
A materialist insists "spirits" do no exist,
I for one think spirituality only exists in the human brain.
I do not think an animist is an atheist,
even to litterally he may not believe in any God.
He clearly believes in spirits, so a materialst he is not.
As for taoists, I am not sure spirits have a role of any importance
within Taoism. But maybe they have. I found out may Buddists give
importance on putting gold-leaf on Buddha statues, even though, it
seems to totally contradict the teaching of Buddha, wich teachings
clearly show, buddha has no need for any godleaf.
I think the reason you did not think of "materialst" yourself,
is that the word has a second meaning to many people,
with is a person who cares a lot about material possesions.
However filosophically a materialst is only a person, who thinks,
that apart from the matter and energy physics deal with,
there is seperate "spirtual" substance.
Those who do think there is "spiritual" stuff apart from matter,
ar called "dualists".
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, July 2004
Bright/Atheist#1107/Materialist
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
| User: "abc123" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 08:38:59 PM |
|
|
(Peter van Velzen) wrote in message
I for one think spirituality only exists in the human brain.
Technically that is where the experience resides, and the
experience involves brain chemicals and the firing neurons,
but of course I don't believe that the believed-to-exist
spirits or gods actually do anywhere. Thus I am a materialist.
Here's the Merriam Webster definition:
Main Entry: ma·te·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: m&-'tir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality
and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as
manifestations or results of matter b : a doctrine that the only or
the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the
furtherance of material progress c : a doctrine that economic or
social change is materially caused -- compare HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
2 : a preoccupation with or stress upon material rather than
intellectual or spiritual things
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 03:15:08 PM |
|
|
z72y@yahoo.com (abc123) wrote in message
news:<86ce9fd7.0407231909.70fe17e2@posting.google.com>...
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual?
Secularism :=
1/ Religious skepticism or indifference.
2/ The view that religious considerations should be excluded
from civil affairs or public education.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
secularist :=
\Sec"u*lar*ist\, n. One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the facts
and influences which are derived from the present life; also, one who
believes that education and other matters of civil policy should be
managed without the introduction of a religious element.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
secularist
n : an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion should be
excluded from government and education
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 12:14:55 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism article <7716bb89.0407240904.3d74f439@posting.google.com> Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
: (abc123) wrote in message news:<86ce9fd7.0407231909.70fe17e2@posting.google.com>...
: > It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
: > of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
: > of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
: > rather narrow definitions.
: >
: > So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
: > all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
: > believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
: > be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
: > anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
: > but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
: I think you are looking for the word "materialst".
: However a materialist (I am one) does not reject "spirituality".
: A materialist insists "spirits" do no exist,
: I for one think spirituality only exists in the human brain.
Careful. This means you do not know anything about human beings, as per
genius abccounter.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
THE LESSER-KNOWN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES #2: RENE
Named after the famous French philosopher and mathematician Rene
DesCartes, RENE is a language used for artificial intelligence. The
language is being developed at the Chicago Center of Machine Politics
and Programming under a grant from the Jane Byrne Victory Fund. A
spokesman described the language as "Just as great as dis [sic] city of
ours."
The center is very pleased with progress to date. They say they have
almost succeeded in getting a VAX to think. However, sources inside the
organization say that each time the machine fails to think it ceases to
exist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
23 Jul 2004 10:22:33 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism article <86ce9fd7.0407231909.70fe17e2@posting.google.com> abc123 <z72y@yahoo.com> wrote:
: It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
: of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
: of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
: rather narrow definitions.
: So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
: all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
: believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
: be called atheists.
They are, though, still dualists.
Surely there is a term for being
: anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
: but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
Why need a name? Humans do have a spiritual component. It is, though, an
internal, subjective, emotional response to something greater than
oneself. This is why patriotism is so often confused with religion in the
backward USA.
There is no need, then, once that is understood, to point to something
outside the self as in god(s) causing this response. No need whatsoever.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Watching xians in church is like watching slugs worship their vision of
an angry box of salt...
- polemyx at Cirrus Logic,Inc.
on alt.atheism.satire
.
|
|
|
| User: "abc123" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 11:56:16 AM |
|
|
John M Price PhD <jmprice@calweb.com> wrote in message
Why need a name? Humans do have a spiritual component.
Do they really? I don't. I don't know many atheists who do?
You seem rather ignorant about humans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 12:19:32 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 23 Jul 2004 20:09:11 -0700, (abc123)
let us all know that:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods
No, it's not clear.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
26 Jul 2004 02:08:07 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2004 20:09:11 -0700, (abc123) wrote:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality?
It depends on how/why they reject spirituality.
(And what *kind* of spirituality they reject.)
They could be a materialist or a Nihilist.
Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
I don't think labels are that important - what you think and how you
think about things is rarely captured by a label.
Even atheist is just a jumping off point - gives vague indication of
where you are comming from.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 03:35:27 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2004 20:09:11 -0700, (abc123) wrote:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
It seems quite clear that you are a deliberately in-your-face,
deliberately nasty idiot.
But then we knew that already from your previous posts where you used
Merriam Webster to insist to us that our POV isn't what it actually
is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 11:54:25 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<mn74g0d97ltb8hng3hg125bh1leeb7o6em@4ax.com>...
On 23 Jul 2004 20:09:11 -0700, (abc123) wrote:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
It seems quite clear that you are a deliberately in-your-face,
deliberately nasty idiot.
But then we knew that already from your previous posts where you used
Merriam Webster to insist to us that our POV isn't what it actually
is.
It seems quite clear, that you are not referring to anything said in
the initial post, so please, next time you feel like you want to
express these feelings, start a new subject like, "why a do not "like
1 abc123" or
"why I do not like people referring to Merriam Webster"
and please - if yo do - explain why.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, July 2004
Bright/Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "abc123" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 11:57:03 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message re.
It seems quite clear that you are a deliberately in-your-face,
deliberately nasty idiot.
Did you forget to take your medication today or something?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
24 Jul 2004 12:06:55 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2004 20:09:11 -0700, (abc123) wrote:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
Skeptic.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 10:56:07 AM |
|
|
On 23 Jul 2004 20:09:11 -0700, (abc123) wrote:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods, and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence. Even Merriam Webster confirms these
rather narrow definitions.
So my question is, what do you call a person who rejects
all spirituality? Because an animist or a Taoist still
believes in spirits and sacred energies and can therefore
be called atheists. Surely there is a term for being
anti-spiritual? I am thinking materialist is technically it,
but that has been co-opted by pop culture.
http://www.the-brights.net/
A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
A bright's worldview is free of
supernatural and mystical elements
The ethics and actions of a bright
are based on a naturalistic worldview
Bright (n.)--What is the definition?
The noun form of bright refers to a person whose worldview is
naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. A Bright's
ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview.
The Macmillan English Dictionary
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/resourcenew-030829-bright.htm
Bright noun [C]
a person who has a naturalistic world view, free of supernatural and
mystical elements. The fundamental principle of this world view is
that the universe is governed by natural laws and that there are no
supernatural forces.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 02:20:06 AM |
|
|
abc123 wrote:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods ...
No, it's not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote a
belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. No, it's not a faith. No,
it's not a religion. No, it's not a philosophy. No, it's not based on
faith. Atheist is simply an adjective used to distinguish those
of us who don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.
and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence.
Nobody knows that a god exists, so we are all in the same boat
knowledgewise, so this isn't about knowledge, it is about that
irrational theist religious belief that there might be a magically
invisible god anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such thing
(theists), the absence of such irrational religious belief (atheists),
or, to go one step further, the outright denial and repudiation of such
religious belief as a matter of principle (agnostics).
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Agnostics, who are also atheist, go one step further than others who are
atheist to deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "abc123" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 10:54:54 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<GaJMc.165167$JR4.127504@attbi_s54>...
Nobody knows that a god exists, so we are all in the same boat
knowledgewise
Depends on your philosophy (if you have one). I adhere to the
anthropological/Socratic view that religions are created
by social groups and that they impose a kind of psychosis
from which the mind must be freed (as described in the Cave Allegory).
Given this, I deny the existence of gods categorically since
there is sufficient evidence they are an illusion made by man.
Granted there may also be gods other than those created by man,
but that is purely just a ludicrous fantasy that I'm not
going to waste my time on.
Except...when I let out a really good fart I always
say "Praise Jesus". Dunno why, it just seems appropriate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
26 Jul 2004 02:37:05 AM |
|
|
abc123 wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<GaJMc.165167$JR4.127504@attbi_s54>...
Nobody knows that a god exists, so we are all in the same boat
knowledgewise
Depends on your philosophy (if you have one). I adhere to the
anthropological/Socratic view that religions are created
by social groups and that they impose a kind of psychosis
from which the mind must be freed (as described in the Cave Allegory).
Given this, I deny the existence of gods categorically since
there is sufficient evidence they are an illusion made by man.
Granted there may also be gods other than those created by man ...
What leads to that conclusion?
... but that is purely just a
ludicrous fantasy that I'm not
going to waste my time on.
Except...when I let out a really good fart I always
say "Praise Jesus". Dunno why, it just seems appropriate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abc123" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
26 Jul 2004 01:34:32 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
Depends on your philosophy (if you have one). I adhere to the
anthropological/Socratic view that religions are created
by social groups and that they impose a kind of psychosis
from which the mind must be freed (as described in the Cave Allegory).
Given this, I deny the existence of gods categorically since
there is sufficient evidence they are an illusion made by man.
Granted there may also be gods other than those created by man ...
What leads to that conclusion?
Well ultimately anthropology is based on scientific principles,
and science is based on materialism. As for Socrates, he examined
the views of people he encountered, including religionists,
and found most of them contradicted themselves; if religious
views are based on contradictions, they aren't going to get my support.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
26 Jul 2004 12:37:57 PM |
|
|
In article <Bw2Nc.164206$IQ4.143125@attbi_s02>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
abc123 wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<GaJMc.165167$JR4.127504@attbi_s54>...
Nobody knows that a god exists, so we are all in the same boat
knowledgewise
Depends on your philosophy (if you have one). I adhere to the
anthropological/Socratic view that religions are created
by social groups and that they impose a kind of psychosis
from which the mind must be freed (as described in the Cave Allegory).
Given this, I deny the existence of gods categorically since
there is sufficient evidence they are an illusion made by man.
Granted there may also be gods other than those created by man ...
What leads to that conclusion?
it is a speculation, not a conclusion. he hasn't said that there are
such gods, only that he is not rejecting the possibility.
But that is the great hangup of Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space
Pixies), that he rates everyone who does not subscribe to his
anti-theist dogma as being a theist dogmatist.
It ain't so, Septic Capon, old Simple Pimple, there are those who can
consider the possibility of a god existing without being themselves
thesists. In fact, all agnostics are of this ilk.
And, no, Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is not even
close to being an agnostic, despite his hypocritical claims to be.
... but that is purely just a
ludicrous fantasy that I'm not
going to waste my time on.
Except...when I let out a really good fart I always
say "Praise Jesus". Dunno why, it just seems appropriate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 03:05:43 PM |
|
|
In article <GaJMc.165167$JR4.127504@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
abc123 wrote:
It seems quite clear that atheism means denying the existence
of gods ...
No...
Actually, atheism is basically only a lack of belief in gods, of
whatever description. Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies)
would have it that atheists are those who do not believe in
magically invisible sky pixies, but as there are many other descriptions
of "god" which his description does not cover, his definition allows
atheists to believe in all sorts of gods, contrary to the general
understanding of the word "atheist".
and agnosticism means denying that one can know
of their existence.
Nobody knows that a god exists, so we are all in the same boat
knowledgewise, so this isn't about knowledge,
There are those who claim to know that their god(s) actually exist, they
are called Gnostic theists.
There are thos who claim to know that no gods can exist, they are called
Gnostic anti-theists, a splinter group of zealot atheists. Septic (of
the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is a very visible member of this
group.
If one these two flavors of Gnosticism is flawed, they both are.
it is about that
irrational theist religious belief that there might be a magically
invisible god
Just as Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) has messed up on
the definition of atheists to allow atheists to believe in a variety of
gods who are not,magically invisible sky pixies here Septic (of the
Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) defines theists to allow them not to
believe in any any gods but only in the possibility of gods.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) lives in a strange world
in which there can be atheist believing in gods and theists not
believing in gods.
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
This is how most atheists define themselve, in contrast to Septic (of
the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) who has a perverted view of atheism.
Agnostics, go one step further than others to deny and repudiate
equally, on principle, claims of knowledge of either the existence or
the impossibility of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence."
-- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic'
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 03:16:23 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
There are thos who claim to know that no gods can exist, they are called
Gnostic anti-theists, a splinter group of zealot atheists. Septic (of
the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is a very visible member of this
group.
If one these two flavors of Gnosticism is flawed, they both are.
No. It depends on the flaws. If the flaw is merely a lack
of justification, then I do not see why both flavours need
fall in the same camp. If, OTOH, in your epistimological
view of things (and I do not hold this view), there is
necessarily a lack of justification because infallible proof
cannot be had, then you are correct.
--
M2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 05:19:13 PM |
|
|
In article <nyUMc.472$BU4.113248@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Michael Moore <m.moore@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
There are thos who claim to know that no gods can exist, they are called
Gnostic anti-theists, a splinter group of zealot atheists. Septic (of
the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is a very visible member of this
group.
If one these two flavors of Gnosticism is flawed, they both are.
No. It depends on the flaws. If the flaw is merely a lack
of justification, then I do not see why both flavours need
fall in the same camp. If, OTOH, in your epistimological
view of things (and I do not hold this view), there is
necessarily a lack of justification because infallible proof
cannot be had, then you are correct.
Axctually, infallible proof of the existence of a god, were any to
exist, might be possible, whereas a generic proof of non-existence is
amost certainly impossible.
The agnostic position, to which I subscribe, says the one should not
claim knowledge of anything for which there is not logically convincing
evidence. Gnostic theists and Gnostic ati-theists both claim such
ungrounded knowledge, and that claim of knowledge is the flaw to which I
refer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ArWeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 09:18:18 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-64424A.16191325072004@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <nyUMc.472$BU4.113248@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Michael Moore <m.moore@NOSPAMutoronto.ca> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
There are thos who claim to know that no gods can exist, they are
called
Gnostic anti-theists, a splinter group of zealot atheists. Septic (of
the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is a very visible member of this
group.
[snip]
Axctually, infallible proof of the existence of a god, were any to
exist, might be possible, whereas a generic proof of non-existence is
amost certainly impossible.
The agnostic position, to which I subscribe, says the one should not
claim knowledge of anything for which there is not logically convincing
evidence. Gnostic theists and Gnostic ati-theists both claim such
ungrounded knowledge, and that claim of knowledge is the flaw to which I
refer.
So, I (and I hope, you) have ungrounded knowledge that monkeys may fly out
of my butt. They could, since monkeys exist and my ***** is really big, and
there may by flying monkeys that I know of, but that _you_ have never
seen...
I was gonna say "that Santa exists", but I thought Flying Monkeys(tm) would
be more fun in the follow-up threads... ;-)
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be her Holy Horn) believes that persons
whom claim "not to know" are secret Anti-Unicorn, God-Fearing(r) cultists
who are secretly (out-in-the-open) believing in the Big Bearded God and
don't want to offend Him by "really" denouncing Him. Just admit you love
Gawd and don't want to be Damned For All Time(tm) and stop pretending, or
say it out loud - There is no God! There was no Jesus! There was no Horus!
There was no Odin! Krishna is a Big Blue *****(r)!
--
ArWeAllMonkeys*
* see 12 Monkeys, the movie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 05:10:24 PM |
|
|
Michael Moore wrote:
Virgil wrote:
There are thos who claim to know that no gods can exist, they are
called Gnostic anti-theists, a splinter group of zealot atheists.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is a very visible
member of this group.
If one these two flavors of Gnosticism is flawed, they both are.
No. It depends on the flaws. If the flaw is merely a lack of
justification, then I do not see why both flavours need fall in the same
camp. If, OTOH, in your epistimological view of things (and I do not
hold this view), there is necessarily a lack of justification because
infallible proof cannot be had, then you are correct.
That's a straw man Virgil is building. Don't feed the troll. Virgil is
lying; I have never, as Virgil asserts, claimed to know that no
magically invisible space pixies can exist. The fact is that I am not
the one making the claim, Virgil and company are. Virgil and Company
insist that there might be a magically invisible space pixie anyway,
even though there is not one shred of logically satisfactory evidence
leading to such a conclusion that Virgil and Company can point out so
that others can check their observations. All they can do is argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that there is no proof their hypothesis is false. All I am
doing is pointing out the huge problem with the argument of Virgil and
Company. I am not making any claim at all, Virgil and Company are just
trying to get away with building a straw man and shifting the burden of
proof away from themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 11:04:50 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
--snip--
=That's a straw man Virgil is building. Don't feed the troll.
<BLAM!!> <Irony-O-Meter shoots through ceiling>
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"And these signs shall follow them that believe;
In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall
speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents;
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not
hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover." - Mark 16:17-18
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
26 Jul 2004 02:29:07 AM |
|
|
Mike Smith wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
--snip--
=That's a straw man Virgil is building. Don't feed the troll.
<BLAM!!> <Irony-O-Meter shoots through ceiling>
What are you talking about? You aren't siding with Virgil and Company,
are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
26 Jul 2004 12:31:25 PM |
|
|
In article <7p2Nc.30391$8_6.27666@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Mike Smith wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
--snip--
=That's a straw man Virgil is building. Don't feed the troll.
<BLAM!!> <Irony-O-Meter shoots through ceiling>
What are you talking about? You aren't siding with Virgil and Company,
are you?
Everybody else with any sense has, so why shouldn't Mike?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: going further than atheism |
25 Jul 2004 08:50:11 PM |
|
|
In article <jdWMc.160375$%_6.7964@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Michael Moore wrote:
Virgil wrote:
There are thos who claim to know that no gods can exist, they are
called Gnostic anti-theists, a splinter group of zealot atheists.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is a very visible
member of this group.
If one these two flavors of Gnosticism is flawed, they both are.
No. It depends on the flaws. If the flaw is merely a lack of
justification, then I do not see why both flavours need fall in the same
camp. If, OTOH, in your epistimological view of things (and I do not
hold this view), there is necessarily a lack of justification because
infallible proof cannot be had, then you are correct.
That's a straw man Virgil is building. Don't feed the troll. Virgil is
lying; I have never, as Virgil asserts, claimed to know that no
magically invisible space pixies can exist.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) has often claimed to
know that no gods can exist. But he waffles, as now, when called on it.
I don't think anyone except Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space
Pixies) has claimed anything about Magically Invisible Space Pixies.
The fact is that I am not
the one making the claim, Virgil and company are. Virgil and Company
insist that there might be a magically invisible space pixie anyway
Not so! it is only Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) who
ever says anything about the Magically Invisible Space Pixies. The rest
of us restrict our remarks to gods.
And our statements are consistent with a non-existence of gods, so one
wonders what Septic (of the Magically Invisible Sky Pixies) is so up
tight about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
