| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jake21" |
| Date: |
09 Jan 2005 12:28:33 PM |
| Object: |
not anti God |
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
16 Jan 2005 09:25:46 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Nick Wesh <nick500@flashmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
You are using the term law in a prescriptive sense, which is
unwarranted because scientific laws are empiricial generalizations,
which are descriptive.
I used the term in that if Santa was doing what it's claimed he can
do, then
either the laws aren't as we think they are or that he's somehow
managing to
change them. I.e. the "break the laws of physics" is an idiom here. I
do
know the difference between descriptive "laws" (laws of nature) and
proscriptive laws (laws of man/criminal laws.)
Then one could say that Santa was breaking laws of physics, which being
descriptive wouldn't be a problem at all. Atleast within science,
exceptions to descriptive laws are found all the time, with the laws
being shifted to fit new observations.
When we do find something that "breaks the laws" then yes, we do adjust the
laws to fit the new data. But if X is simply proposed and X "violates" the
laws as we know them to be at that point, then we'd say that X is impossible
unless/until we're shown that the laws were actually incorrect. Example:
we'd both agree that it's impossible for me to flap my arms and fly like a
bird. Now we MIGHT find that happen one day and then have to change the laws
of physics but until/unless that ever happens, we'd both say it's impossible
by todays knowledge.
Read up on the argument from evil.
Short version:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
How did Epicurus account for objective evil(malevolence)?
I don't really agree that there's such a thing as "evil" as such. IMHO,
there's such things as "right" and "wrong" but, also IMHO, they can be shown
to be simply evolutionary in nature. I.e. anything that's right is anything
that helps the species survive and anything that's wrong hinders such
survival (but it's often very difficult to say if action X is right or wrong
because we can't see all the ramifications of it. So we often times use
"situational ethics", etc. So that sometimes it seems right to kill another
person, such as in self-defense or executing a criminal (although I'm
anti-death penalty myself) and other times it seems wrong.) Pretty much any
action that we consider to be moral in nature (as opposed to amoral actions
such as sleeping, eating, walking, etc. that have nothing to do with morals)
can be shown to either help (if considered to be morally right) or hinder
(if considered to be morally wrong) species survival.
As to why we have people who do wrong things (call it "evil" if you'd like),
we can look at the fact that nothing is perfect. Just as we have physical
defects in pretty much all people, we have mental defects as well. Also
sometimes what seems to be wrong may actually wind up being good for the
species if we really looked closely. An example would be wars. We may say
"war is wrong" but if we can get rid of an opposing tribe/group/country,
that would leave more resources for us and thus our part of the species
would be better able to survive (this also explains bigotry, etc.) But maybe
by helping the other groups to survive actually would help our "subspecies"
to survive better ("power in numbers") and that would explain why some of us
do see war as being wrong. Just an example of how things are so difficult to
show as black&white even if it can be said that it all boils down to "does
action X help or hinder species survival?")
By the way, thank you for trying to talk to Chris.
Oh, Chris is a hopeless case so I wasn't trying to talk to HIM as such. I
just try to show others that we're not all like him. I might agree with him
that the god of the bible doesn't exist (nor do I see any other gods that
have been proposed as existing) but I don't agree with his attitude, etc.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
-------------------------------
The only product that Micro$oft could produce that *wouldn't* suck would be a
vacuum cleaner..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 12:38:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:27:44 GMT, wrote:
In talk.atheism Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <uu69u0p4o5fa6dkpjqbj1705kgnnh6mgta@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:16:42 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode
<1105483037.552324.117180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Shifting of the burden of proof. Jake21 clearly stated that he wished
there was a god but asserted that there isn't, thus, he is a believer
in the assertion that there isn't a god. It is his responsibility to
provide sound reasoning and evidence for that conclusion. Asserting
that there isn't a god is not the same thing as lacking a belief in the
existence of a god or gods. Strong atheism vs. weak atheism.
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've never
seen any evidence for such a being."
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
And "there ain't no Santa Claus".
But the moron redefines his attitude to ghosts, Santa Claus etc into a
positive belief that it doesn't exist, in order to fit his
misrepresentaion of atheists.
Like the rest of them he's too stupid to grasp that atheists and theists
aren't even talking about the same thing.
Bet even he's willing to say "there is no Santa Claus" and not see the
problem...
Actually, the problem is that we can prove that Santa can't exist (as
described.) He'd have to break several laws of physics in order to deliver
all those toys in one night, for example. So we can say "there ain't no
Santa" (yeah, I put in the double-neg as a joke) and be able to support that
statement. But saying "there ain't no god" isn't on quite the same par. Now
I'll state that there is no god as described in the bible (a tri-omni)
because that god is logically impossible. But I won't say "there's no entity
that created the universe" simply because I have no proof that there isn't
(but, by the same token, I'll not say there is such an entity either and
will act as if there is no such entity.)
Not if you grant it the same copouts Christians grant their deity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 08:11:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:58:13 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode <uu69u0p4o5fa6dkpjqbj1705kgnnh6mgta@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee lept out of the bushes shouting:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:16:42 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In our last episode
<1105483037.552324.117180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Nick Wesh lept
out of the bushes shouting:
Shifting of the burden of proof. Jake21 clearly stated that he wished
there was a god but asserted that there isn't, thus, he is a believer
in the assertion that there isn't a god. It is his responsibility to
provide sound reasoning and evidence for that conclusion. Asserting
that there isn't a god is not the same thing as lacking a belief in the
existence of a god or gods. Strong atheism vs. weak atheism.
Or the phrase "there is no god" is merely a way of saying "I've never
seen any evidence for such a being."
Like people say "there's no such thing as ghosts."
And "there ain't no Santa Claus".
But the moron redefines his attitude to ghosts, Santa Claus etc into a
positive belief that it doesn't exist, in order to fit his
misrepresentaion of atheists.
Like the rest of them he's too stupid to grasp that atheists and theists
aren't even talking about the same thing.
Bet even he's willing to say "there is no Santa Claus" and not see the
problem...
Sucker bet. So many of them get their panties in a twist when their
superstition isn't given special treatment.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
11 Jan 2005 05:23:14 PM |
|
|
fOn 11 Jan 2005 14:37:17 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Shifting of the burden of proof. Jake21 clearly stated that he wished
there was a god but asserted that there isn't, thus, he is a believer
in the assertion that there isn't a god. It is his responsibility to
provide sound reasoning and evidence for that conclusion. Asserting
that there isn't a god is not the same thing as lacking a belief in the
existence of a god or gods. Strong atheism vs. weak atheism.
When are you morons going to realise that (a) it's not a belief,
assertion or any of the things you dishonestly pretend, and (b) it's
no different than "there ain't no Santa Claus".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
11 Jan 2005 09:00:41 PM |
|
|
The insult was an unncessary ad hominem, and in Jake's case, it wasn't
merely a lack of belief. Saying "there ain't no Santa Claus" is not
merely a lack of belief, it is a positive belief in the non-existence
of Santa Claus. Likewise, Jake said there isn't a god. Jake may lack a
belief in the existence of god, but he also has a belief in its
non-existence. I'm asking him to substantiate that belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
11 Jan 2005 09:27:42 PM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2005 19:00:41 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
The insult was an unncessary ad hominem, and in Jake's case, it wasn't
merely a lack of belief. Saying "there ain't no Santa Claus" is not
merely a lack of belief, it is a positive belief in the non-existence
of Santa Claus. Likewise, Jake said there isn't a god. Jake may lack a
belief in the existence of god, but he also has a belief in its
non-existence. I'm asking him to substantiate that belief.
What "insult"?
You and he need to learn to think in the real world where both youtr
deity and Santa Claus are both merely somebody else's cultural belief,
instead of inventing positions atheists don't have about something
utterly irrelevant to us.
You also need to stop replacing things like "conclusion" with
"belief". That is tantamount to lying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
12 Jan 2005 09:04:12 PM |
|
|
What "insult"?
Were you not calling me a moron, and subsequently committing the
argumentum ad hominem fallacy?
You and he need to learn to think in the real world where both youtr
deity and Santa Claus are both merely somebody else's cultural
belief,
Of what relevance is this sentence?
instead of inventing positions atheists don't have about something
utterly irrelevant to us.
There are indeed strong atheists, like those of www.strongatheism.org
You also need to stop replacing things like "conclusion" with
"belief". That is tantamount to lying.
You've yet to demonstrate that belief and conclusion are contradictory
terms. How are they, for when someone reaches an evidentially sound
conclusion, it would seem that he/she believes in its validity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
12 Jan 2005 09:31:27 PM |
|
|
Forgive me, the site is www.strongatheism.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
12 Jan 2005 11:58:17 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2005 19:04:12 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
What "insult"?
Were you not calling me a moron, and subsequently committing the
argumentum ad hominem fallacy?
I called you a moron for being one, and you need to learn what an ad
hominem is. Hint: I didn't ignore what you said because you are a
moron, I ALSO told you where your "mistake" was.
You and he need to learn to think in the real world where both youtr
deity and Santa Claus are both merely somebody else's cultural
belief,
Of what relevance is this sentence?
Read it for comprehension. It explained why you were wrong, moron.
instead of inventing positions atheists don't have about something
utterly irrelevant to us.
There are indeed strong atheists, like those of www.strongatheism.org
So? And even for them it's no different than "there ain't no Santa
Claus".
You still imagine that atheists are talking about the same thing you
are.
You also need to stop replacing things like "conclusion" with
"belief". That is tantamount to lying.
You've yet to demonstrate that belief and conclusion are contradictory
terms. How are they, for when someone reaches an evidentially sound
conclusion, it would seem that he/she believes in its validity.
I didn't say they were, moron. Just that you reduce everything to
"belief" so that you can commit the fallacy of equivocation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 02:27:17 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005 19:04:12 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
What "insult"?
Were you not calling me a moron, and subsequently committing the
argumentum ad hominem fallacy?
I called you a moron for being one, and you need to learn what an ad
hominem is. Hint: I didn't ignore what you said because you are a
moron, I ALSO told you where your "mistake" was.
That is to say, if you address the point, you are free to insult. Seems
fair(though quite unnecessary), but let's see whether you sufficiently
addressed the point.
You and he need to learn to think in the real world where both
youtr
deity and Santa Claus are both merely somebody else's cultural
belief,
Of what relevance is this sentence?
Read it for comprehension. It explained why you were wrong, moron.
You first called me a moron because I called Jake's position a belief
in the existence of gods while you thought I was generalizing atheism.
I was not, and therefore, you were incorrect. Jake was either making a
positive assertion of the non-existence of(making him a strong
atheist), or he was uncritically misuing language.
<snip>
So? And even for them it's no different than "there ain't no Santa
Claus".
Sure, but saying "I lack belief in the existence of Santa Claus" is
quite different from "There ain't no Santa Claus". To have the former
mean the same as the latter is simply a poor use of language. One is a
negative existential claim on the objective level(regarding concrete
existence), while the other is a negative existential on the subjective
level regarding belief(which is abstract).
<snip>
You also need to stop replacing things like "conclusion" with
"belief". That is tantamount to lying.
You've yet to demonstrate that belief and conclusion are
contradictory
terms. How are they, for when someone reaches an evidentially sound
conclusion, it would seem that he/she believes in its validity.
I didn't say they were, moron. Just that you reduce everything to
"belief" so that you can commit the fallacy of equivocation.
I would not intend to commit a fallacy, nor do I believe that I have
done so.
Also, for the purposes of civil discourse, I ask that you not insult me
further.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 03:10:52 PM |
|
|
You first called me a moron because I called Jake's position a belief
in the existence of gods while you thought I was generalizing
atheism.
I meant nonexistence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 02:48:20 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 12:27:17 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005 19:04:12 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
What "insult"?
Were you not calling me a moron, and subsequently committing the
argumentum ad hominem fallacy?
I called you a moron for being one, and you need to learn what an ad
hominem is. Hint: I didn't ignore what you said because you are a
moron, I ALSO told you where your "mistake" was.
That is to say, if you address the point, you are free to insult. Seems
fair(though quite unnecessary), but let's see whether you sufficiently
addressed the point.
You and he need to learn to think in the real world where both
youtr
deity and Santa Claus are both merely somebody else's cultural
belief,
Of what relevance is this sentence?
Read it for comprehension. It explained why you were wrong, moron.
You first called me a moron because I called Jake's position a belief
in the existence of gods while you thought I was generalizing atheism.
I was not, and therefore, you were incorrect. Jake was either making a
positive assertion of the non-existence of(making him a strong
atheist), or he was uncritically misuing language.
You still don't get it, do you?
What part of ATHEISTS AND THEISTS AREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
THING are you pretending you don't understand?
<snip>
So? And even for them it's no different than "there ain't no Santa
Claus".
Sure, but saying "I lack belief in the existence of Santa Claus" is
quite different from "There ain't no Santa Claus". To have the former
mean the same as the latter is simply a poor use of language. One is a
negative existential claim on the objective level(regarding concrete
existence), while the other is a negative existential on the subjective
level regarding belief(which is abstract).
Somehow I knew you were going to redefine positions WRT Santa Claus,
to fit your ignorant preconceptions about how others see your beliefs.
<snip>
You also need to stop replacing things like "conclusion" with
"belief". That is tantamount to lying.
You've yet to demonstrate that belief and conclusion are
contradictory
terms. How are they, for when someone reaches an evidentially sound
conclusion, it would seem that he/she believes in its validity.
I didn't say they were, moron. Just that you reduce everything to
"belief" so that you can commit the fallacy of equivocation.
I would not intend to commit a fallacy, nor do I believe that I have
done so.
Then don't reduce everything to "belief".
Also, for the purposes of civil discourse, I ask that you not insult me
further.
Then learn to read for comprehension, and to think outside the
confines of your religion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Wesh" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 03:24:25 PM |
|
|
<snip>
You still don't get it, do you?
What part of ATHEISTS AND THEISTS AREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
THING are you pretending you don't understand?
What part of that statement have you demonstrated? The term atheist
possesses the term theist, with the negator a. Jake, being an atheist,
said that there isn't a god, and I asked him to defend it. Is there
something wrong with that? Now, it's possible that he actually meant
that he personally hadn't seen evidence for the existence of a god, but
now this is a misuse of language, whether consciously or
subconsciously. I'm free to acknowledge that, but those are the two
choices as I observe them.
Somehow I knew you were going to redefine positions WRT Santa
Claus, to fit your ignorant preconceptions about how others see
your beliefs.
What terms did I redefine? Am I wrong for simply wishing that people
would say what they mean and mean what they say? Is the desire for
clarification that wrong?
Then don't reduce everything to "belief".
Ok....
Also, for the purposes of civil discourse, I ask that you not insult
me
further.
Then learn to read for comprehension, and to think outside the
confines of your religion.
Interesting, because I've yet to assert a religious position. Also,
I thought my comprehension of Jake's passage was sufficient and I do
not believe that you have demonstrated otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 05:48:40 PM |
|
|
The term atheist possesses the term theist, with the negator a.
Theists 'deify' a person. In particular Jews and Christians deify
Jehovah and/or Jesus.
In my case, I do not deify. Whether Jehovah (as a person or dynasty of
warlords) and/or Jesus (as a person) actually existed or not is
irrelevant, they most likely did. In fact most of who are called 'god'
most likely existed too, as warlords, ancestor leaders, or some such.
Jake, being an atheist, said that there isn't a god, and I asked him
to defend it.
The problem is that you are probably (or even merely possibly) equating
'god' and 'Jehovah' (or some variation) and 'what it says in the Bible'
and 'creator of the universe' as one indivisible thing when you say
'god', while also excluding other 'gods' as myths and deranged
fantasies.
Now you would probably think of me as an 'atheist', but I use that term
as meaning 'not deifying'. I don't have to prove that your concept of
what you mean by 'god' doesn't exist, nor that all the other 'god's
that you would dismiss out of hand do not exist, I only need to
_not_deify_ them.
If you wish to deify Jehovah, or Jesus, or any other person who may
have once existed or may be entirely mythical then you may do so, and I
will then call you a theist.
The fact that I _don't_ do that makes me an atheist, I don't deify
Jehovah or Jesus or Allah or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy regardless
of whether they once existed or not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 03:38:02 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2005 13:24:25 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
You still don't get it, do you?
What part of ATHEISTS AND THEISTS AREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
THING are you pretending you don't understand?
What part of that statement have you demonstrated? The term atheist
possesses the term theist, with the negator a. Jake, being an atheist,
said that there isn't a god, and I asked him to defend it. Is there
something wrong with that? Now, it's possible that he actually meant
that he personally hadn't seen evidence for the existence of a god, but
now this is a misuse of language, whether consciously or
subconsciously. I'm free to acknowledge that, but those are the two
choices as I observe them.
1. The "a-" prefix isn't a negator. It's known as the alpha privative
and shows the absence of the prefixed property.
2. We're simply people who aren't theist. That's all
3. Even so-called "strong atheists".
4. "God" is the theists' premise that doesn't even apply outside their
theism.
5. They don't seem to grasp just how utterly irrelevant it is outside
it.
6. In spite of your pretence, "There's no God" is no different than
"there's no Santa Claus".
7. Because they're BOTH something somebody else BELIEVES.
8. Cultural phenomena.
9. Not something that could or could not exist.
10. In exactly the same way Captain James T. Kirk of the Starship
Enterprise isn't somebody who could or couldn't exist.
11. People sometimes make sloppy use of language.
12. Especially when it's a frustrated response to somebody who talks
about Santa Claus, God or Captain Kirk as though they had any
existence outside their various stories, repeatedly rubs it in our
faces and expects us to take it seriously.
13. Under those circumstances you'll find that atheists use the same
language to describe Captain Kirk, God and Santa Claus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
14 Jan 2005 01:57:17 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 13 Jan 2005 12:27:17 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 12 Jan 2005 19:04:12 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
What "insult"?
Were you not calling me a moron, and subsequently committing the
argumentum ad hominem fallacy?
I called you a moron for being one, and you need to learn what an ad
hominem is. Hint: I didn't ignore what you said because you are a
moron, I ALSO told you where your "mistake" was.
That is to say, if you address the point, you are free to insult. Seems
fair(though quite unnecessary), but let's see whether you sufficiently
addressed the point.
You and he need to learn to think in the real world where both
youtr
deity and Santa Claus are both merely somebody else's cultural
belief,
Of what relevance is this sentence?
Read it for comprehension. It explained why you were wrong, moron.
You first called me a moron because I called Jake's position a belief
in the existence of gods while you thought I was generalizing atheism.
I was not, and therefore, you were incorrect. Jake was either making a
positive assertion of the non-existence of(making him a strong
atheist), or he was uncritically misuing language.
You still don't get it, do you?
What part of ATHEISTS AND THEISTS AREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
THING are you pretending you don't understand?
If you aren't even talking about the same thing, then you can't say "there
ain't no god." Before you can claim that there isn't any X in existence, you
must FIRST know what in the hell X is (or at least is alleged to be.)
<snip>
So? And even for them it's no different than "there ain't no Santa
Claus".
Sure, but saying "I lack belief in the existence of Santa Claus" is
quite different from "There ain't no Santa Claus". To have the former
mean the same as the latter is simply a poor use of language. One is a
negative existential claim on the objective level(regarding concrete
existence), while the other is a negative existential on the subjective
level regarding belief(which is abstract).
Somehow I knew you were going to redefine positions WRT Santa Claus,
to fit your ignorant preconceptions about how others see your beliefs.
No, Chris, it's simply using a formal language structure. I, as an atheist,
don't usually go around saying "there is no god" because I can't prove or
know that there isn't any such critter (where I'd take a god as being, in
general, a "creator of the universe" or "some entity capable of
bending/breaking the laws of nature" or such.) But I'd also say that I don't
believe such does exist and that I've never seen credible evidence of such,
nor do I act as if such exists. So for all practical purposes, I ACT like
the statement "there is no god" is true. But, using formal language, I'd
never say that it IS true (although most people don't use formal language.)
Now Santa is a different matter, since I can demonstrate that he's logically
impossible.
<snip>
You also need to stop replacing things like "conclusion" with
"belief". That is tantamount to lying.
You've yet to demonstrate that belief and conclusion are
contradictory
terms. How are they, for when someone reaches an evidentially sound
conclusion, it would seem that he/she believes in its validity.
I didn't say they were, moron. Just that you reduce everything to
"belief" so that you can commit the fallacy of equivocation.
I would not intend to commit a fallacy, nor do I believe that I have
done so.
Then don't reduce everything to "belief".
Also, for the purposes of civil discourse, I ask that you not insult me
further.
Will never happen with Chris. To him, ANYONE who disagrees with him is a
"lying moron."
Then learn to read for comprehension, and to think outside the
confines of your religion.
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
-------------------------------
The only product that Micro$oft could produce that *wouldn't* suck would be a
vacuum cleaner..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
10 Jan 2005 09:25:00 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 19:23:57 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Jake21 wrote:
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
Please substantiate the assertion that there isn't a god.
Look up "no it isn't, PROVE IT".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
11 Jan 2005 04:07:51 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 19:23:57 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Jake21 wrote:
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
Please substantiate the assertion that there isn't a god.
Well this particular atheist is not aware of any gods. Never met one,
never had one in my head, never heard one, or seen tablets being
carved. I have never seen any evidence of any kind that even hints
there might be a god nor do I even know what the term god means,
Thus I have no concept whatsoever of a god EXCEPT there are groups
of people in organisations generally know as religions who seem to
want me to pretend (ie believe) there is one and do something called
'worship' which seems to involve the collective singing of songs and
recitation of poetry in places designated as 'Holy'. Yet these people
have never demonstrated where this concept of a god comes from
or why it is important to gather together in these 'holy' places to
'worship' .
I have asked several theists where this concept of theirs of a god
comes from but date they seem unable to answer. I think they must have
invented this god thing they talk about otherwise why not explain
where this notion of theirs comes from? It is all very strange and a
mystery to me.
So whilst I have no concept or knowledge of gods it is fun to pretend
there is some kind of genii that grants every wish. Every morning,
"when I wake, dear Genii, A little request I make, O please to keep
thy lovely eye on all poor creatures born to die" and Genii would
prevent Tsunami's and other terrible things for me and automatically
replace faulty teeth and do all sorts of nice things. Sadly this
invention of mine, like this seeming invention of religion, is only
pretend, just a nice dream so I must go back to real life and this
sore tooth :-(
* (apologies to Dylan Thomas for slight changes )
-
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 08:20:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:07:51 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2005 19:23:57 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Jake21 wrote:
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
Please substantiate the assertion that there isn't a god.
Well this particular atheist is not aware of any gods. Never met one,
never had one in my head, never heard one, or seen tablets being
carved. I have never seen any evidence of any kind that even hints
there might be a god nor do I even know what the term god means,
Thus I have no concept whatsoever of a god EXCEPT there are groups
of people in organisations generally know as religions who seem to
want me to pretend (ie believe) there is one and do something called
'worship' which seems to involve the collective singing of songs and
recitation of poetry in places designated as 'Holy'. Yet these people
have never demonstrated where this concept of a god comes from
or why it is important to gather together in these 'holy' places to
'worship' .
Don't forget the collecting of $$$$$$$. All denominations are
accepted but 20's, 50's, and 100's are especially welcome.
I have asked several theists where this concept of theirs of a god
comes from but date they seem unable to answer. I think they must have
invented this god thing they talk about otherwise why not explain
where this notion of theirs comes from? It is all very strange and a
mystery to me.
So whilst I have no concept or knowledge of gods it is fun to pretend
there is some kind of genii that grants every wish. Every morning,
"when I wake, dear Genii, A little request I make, O please to keep
thy lovely eye on all poor creatures born to die" and Genii would
prevent Tsunami's and other terrible things for me and automatically
replace faulty teeth and do all sorts of nice things. Sadly this
invention of mine, like this seeming invention of religion, is only
pretend, just a nice dream so I must go back to real life and this
sore tooth :-(
* (apologies to Dylan Thomas for slight changes )
-
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
13 Jan 2005 08:09:39 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 19:23:57 -0800, "Nick Wesh" <nick500@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Jake21 wrote:
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
Please substantiate the assertion that there isn't a god.
What's a g-o-d, oh drooling moron?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
09 Jan 2005 03:17:49 PM |
|
|
On 09 Jan 2005, Jake21 dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
I don't wish there was a god. Especially the one defined in the christian
bible. I used to wish there was eternal life, but if you think that one
through as I have, you wouldn't want any part of it either.
Gods and religion were fabricated by those in power to control large
populations of people who were not in power. The rest is wishful thinking.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Last Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
09 Jan 2005 04:30:30 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2005 10:28:33 -0800, (Jake21)
wrote:
Atheists are not anti god.
Obviously.
I wish there were a god but there isn't.
My god exists: I carved her out of wood myself.
---
http://lastliberal.org
"They sat down in the kitchen, where the morons started pulling out bibles,
books, pamphlets, and other assorted implements of destruction." - Kelsey
Bjarnason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Brand Ewok Skin Bedroom Slippers" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
09 Jan 2005 06:52:01 PM |
|
|
"The Last Liberal" <desertphile@cchr.ws> wrote in message
news:34dpk5F49k21vU2@individual.net...
On 9 Jan 2005 10:28:33 -0800, (Jake21)
wrote:
Atheists are not anti god.
Obviously.
I wish there were a god but there isn't.
My god exists: I carved her out of wood myself.
My goddess is inflatable and comes with a holy patching kit!
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
09 Jan 2005 06:54:25 PM |
|
|
I like Nessie the Loch Ness God myself:
Teacher: Your current event, Napoleon.
Napoleon Dynamite: Last week, Japanese scientists explaced... placed
explosive detonators at the bottom of Lake Loch Ness to blow Nessie out
of the water. Sir Godfrey of the Nessie Alliance summoned the help of
Scotland's local wizards to cast a protective spell over the lake and
its local residents and all those who seek for the peaceful existence
of our underwater ally.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
09 Jan 2005 04:39:22 PM |
|
|
(The Last Liberal) wrote in alt.atheism
jake.hargreaves@gmail.com (Jake21) wrote:
Atheists are not anti god.
Obviously.
I wish there were a god but there isn't.
My god exists: I carved her out of wood myself.
Are you a he or a she yourself? :)
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: not anti God |
09 Jan 2005 07:56:48 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jan 2005 10:28:33 -0800, (Jake21)
wrote:
Atheists are not anti god. I wish there were a god but there isn't.
Oh..... Great.....
Are we one of those real 'atheists in rebellion' types? You
certainly seem to have a propensity for white washing stone age
malignant belief.
Why would you want there to be a god? I can only assume it's one
that has your personal attributes where you'll be rewarded forever
because you.... errrr...... lived? And you're.... you....?
Please elucidate.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
