| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bible John" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 08:28:46 PM |
| Object: |
Questions for Atheists |
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
John
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
John 14:6 Jesus answered, ³I am the way and
the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 08:23:29 AM |
|
|
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults.
Ahem, you're in alt.atheism. What did you expect?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Just Mark - John Wolfs biggest fan" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
25 Oct 2005 09:11:10 PM |
|
|
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
: Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
: of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
: sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
: Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
: cults.
Makes sense...since the major premise of Christianity is "God exists". If
you can't defend that, then what's the point?
:
: 1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
: holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
: isn't that simply faith?
Theism = belief in gods
Atheism = lack of belief in gods
Since when does lack of belief require faith?
:
: 2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
: a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
: you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
: Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
: in them, too?
I lack belief in them. Could screaming blue ants exist? Maybe. But we're
not talking about screaming blue ants, are we? We're talking about a
creature that, when defined, contradicts itself out of existence.
:
:
: 3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
: The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
: they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
: physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
: contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
: do you account for them?
Straw man. How would this add to the evidence for the existence of a god?
:
:
: Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
: say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
: exists.
The "Theory of Dynamics" John? Don't you mean the "Laws of Thermodynamics"?
How many laws of thermodynamics are there? And how are they numbered? Go
ahead...impress me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 12:25:27 AM |
|
|
"Bible John" <john.doggett@x-files.gov> wrote in message
news:john.doggett-DF0EC9.18284625102005@News-West.newsfeeds.com...
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I lack a position concerning the existence of screaming blue ants.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The consistency of the material universe.
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute.
No. The laws of logic are based on observations of the universe.
Being absolute
they transcend space and time.
No. They depend on time and space. They would not function in their absence.
They are not the properties of the
physical universe
Yes they are.
(since they are conceptual)
No they're not.
or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
They are descriptions of the consistent operation of the universe.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Can you convince anyone else?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 12:39:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism which, to me, would be the default
position, the existance of a God, god or gods is unknown or
unknowable.
agnosticism
n 1: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge
of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove
nor disprove God's existence" 2: the disbelief in any claims of
ultimate knowledge
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 04:16:01 AM |
|
|
"Last of All" <LastOfAll@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0b5ul190fmabggmq56str799c4n2kiuste@4ax.com...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning
the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism which, to me, would be the default
position, the existance of a God, god or gods is unknown or
unknowable.
No. Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. With
knowledge, you can have 3 choices, yes, no, or don't know. With belief, you
only have 2 choices, belief or disbelief.
agnosticism
n 1: a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge
of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove
nor disprove God's existence" 2: the disbelief in any claims of
ultimate knowledge
Right, note that this says nothing about belief. All you have to do to be an
atheist is not believe, for whatever reason, in gods.
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
No. It's not a single spectrum. There's 2 states on the belief axis, and a
spectrum of knowledge on the gnosticism axis.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 07:32:13 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It's atheism or theism.
That's it.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 07:38:57 PM |
|
|
In article <3v70m11ot995rohbn9m06cc3p7aoarv6mu@4ax.com>, Don Kresch says...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It's atheism or theism.
That's it.
Don, I find lots of mention of agnosticism on the Net. Are you saying
those people writing about the subject are deluded in some way?
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
27 Oct 2005 08:23:35 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 26 Oct 2005 17:38:57 -0700, Kurt Nicklas
<kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru> let us all know that:
In article <3v70m11ot995rohbn9m06cc3p7aoarv6mu@4ax.com>, Don Kresch says...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It's atheism or theism.
That's it.
Don, I find lots of mention of agnosticism on the Net. Are you saying
those people writing about the subject are deluded in some way?
Misinformed.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 08:15:53 PM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 17:38:57 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
In article <3v70m11ot995rohbn9m06cc3p7aoarv6mu@4ax.com>, Don Kresch says...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It's atheism or theism.
That's it.
Don, I find lots of mention of agnosticism on the Net. Are you saying
those people writing about the subject are deluded in some way?
It's a Fundamentalist brach of athiesm that doesn't believe that
agnosticism exists. The athiest equivalent of Bible John and jw's
Christianity that believes only one form of Christianity exists.
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
27 Oct 2005 08:25:00 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:15:53 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On 26 Oct 2005 17:38:57 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
In article <3v70m11ot995rohbn9m06cc3p7aoarv6mu@4ax.com>, Don Kresch says...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It's atheism or theism.
That's it.
Don, I find lots of mention of agnosticism on the Net. Are you saying
those people writing about the subject are deluded in some way?
It's a Fundamentalist brach of athiesm that doesn't believe that
agnosticism exists.
No, it's the ones who know that agnosticism is about knowledge
of something, and not belief in the existence in, because we know how
to break down a word into its roots.
But that would be way too much like the correct answer, and
not some childish insult, wouldn't it? You wouldn't be able to deal
with that reality, because you are the fundy here.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
27 Oct 2005 01:03:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:15:53 GMT, Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 17:38:57 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
In article <3v70m11ot995rohbn9m06cc3p7aoarv6mu@4ax.com>, Don Kresch says...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It's atheism or theism.
That's it.
Don, I find lots of mention of agnosticism on the Net. Are you saying
those people writing about the subject are deluded in some way?
It's a Fundamentalist brach of athiesm that doesn't believe that
agnosticism exists.
Wow I didn't know that was one of my beliefs!
Thanks for letting me know
(private aside)
I do not believe in agnosticism
I do not believe in agnosticism
I do not believe in agnosticism
I do not believe in agnosticism
Err I have been trying to convine myself of that but it does
not seen to be working. Can you assists me, I must
get my beliefs right!
The athiest equivalent of Bible John and jw's
Christianity that believes only one form of Christianity exists.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 08:24:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:15:53 GMT, Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 17:38:57 -0700, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>
wrote:
In article <3v70m11ot995rohbn9m06cc3p7aoarv6mu@4ax.com>, Don Kresch says...
In alt.atheism On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All
<LastOfAll@nospam.com> let us all know that:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism
Agnosticism is not a 3rd option. It's atheism or theism.
That's it.
Don, I find lots of mention of agnosticism on the Net. Are you saying
those people writing about the subject are deluded in some way?
It's a Fundamentalist brach of athiesm that doesn't believe that
agnosticism exists. The athiest equivalent of Bible John and jw's
Christianity that believes only one form of Christianity exists.
A liar and an idiot.
Terrell
That explains it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Numbaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 02:16:43 AM |
|
|
Last of All wrote:
<snip pedantry>
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
That's a bold statement to post in alt.atheism. Care to substantiate
it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 08:19:16 AM |
|
|
On 26 Oct 2005 00:16:43 -0700, "Cardinal Numbaz"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Last of All wrote:
<snip pedantry>
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
That's a bold statement to post in alt.atheism. Care to substantiate
it?
Certainly - just real quickly.
Athiesm is the position that there is no God, god or gods, etc.
Theism is the position that there is a God and/or god, and/or gods,
and/or etc.
Agnosticism is the position that whether or not there is a God and/or
god and/or gos and or etc. is unknowable and unproveable.
Moving toward Thiesm you begin to think, you don't know, but lean
toward, "there might be." until the end position where you are
positive there is, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
Moving toward Athiesm you begin to think, you don't know but think
there probably isn't until you reach the end where you are positive
there is not, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 09:48:05 AM |
|
|
"Last of All" <LastOfAll@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:i40vl196d0obs6e1gkh6hjvsu4686jrnu3@4ax.com...
On 26 Oct 2005 00:16:43 -0700, "Cardinal Numbaz"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Last of All wrote:
<snip pedantry>
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
That's a bold statement to post in alt.atheism. Care to substantiate
it?
Certainly - just real quickly.
Athiesm is the position that there is no God, god or gods, etc.
Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s).
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kamikaze pig missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 02:33:59 PM |
|
|
Into alt.atheism shot Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com> and
breathlessly exclaimed:
Moving toward Athiesm you begin to think, you don't know but think
there probably isn't until you reach the end where you are positive
there is not, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
Shite. I'm an atheist because the concept of God is patently
irrational and indefensible, evidence or not. No proof needed any more
than proof is needed that Salvador Dali's 'Soft Watch' isn't a
photograph.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 04:58:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:33:59 +0100, Kamikaze pig missionaries
<yournamehere@martyrdom.com> wrote:
Into alt.atheism shot Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com> and
breathlessly exclaimed:
Moving toward Athiesm you begin to think, you don't know but think
there probably isn't until you reach the end where you are positive
there is not, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
Shite. I'm an atheist because the concept of God is patently
irrational and indefensible, evidence or not. No proof needed any more
than proof is needed that Salvador Dali's 'Soft Watch' isn't a
photograph.
The idiots start off from an absolute certainty of its existence, and
treat us as people who don't believe the planet Earth exists (but more
so). They are incapable of thinking outside the box, or of
understanding how people outside it see their most cherished and
certain belief. So they invent a position we don't have based on their
worldview.
I'm atheist because I was never taught to be theist as a child. I
don't even have anything in my paradigm to be irrational and stupid.
It's a cultural phenomenon. Somebody else's religious belief. There
are thousands of different religions out there, each with their own
deities. Theirs is just one out of all these. I don't treat it any
differently from all the others. It's their business, not mine. As
long as they neither impose it nor misrepresent me to the point of
lying about me - at which point it has already got very personal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kamikaze pig missionaries" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 02:24:49 PM |
|
|
Into alt.atheism shot Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com> and
breathlessly exclaimed:
On 26 Oct 2005 00:16:43 -0700, "Cardinal Numbaz"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Last of All wrote:
<snip pedantry>
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
That's a bold statement to post in alt.atheism. Care to substantiate
it?
Certainly - just real quickly.
Athiesm is the position that there is no God, god or gods, etc.
Theism is the position that there is a God and/or god, and/or gods,
and/or etc.
Agnosticism is the position that whether or not there is a God and/or
god and/or gos and or etc. is unknowable and unproveable.
Moving toward Thiesm you begin to think, you don't know, but lean
toward, "there might be." until the end position where you are
positive there is, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
Moving toward Athiesm you begin to think, you don't know but think
there probably isn't until you reach the end where you are positive
there is not, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
A simple 'no' would have sufficed.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 09:00:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:19:16 GMT, Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 00:16:43 -0700, "Cardinal Numbaz"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Last of All wrote:
<snip pedantry>
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
That's a bold statement to post in alt.atheism. Care to substantiate
it?
Certainly - just real quickly.
Athiesm is the position that there is no God, god or gods, etc.
Yet another sociopath who imagines he gets to tell us what our
position "really" is.
What is it with you guys?
It's arrogant, rude and stupid.
Why is it so hard to understand that the theist's common usage
"definition" of atheists and agnostics is a invention based on
presumptions that only apply to theists?
In the real world outside the virtual reality of theistic religion,
god(s) are merely the theist's religious belief.
A belief, not something that could or could not exist.
It's not rocket science. But it's at the root of why you get it wrong.
Theism is the position that there is a God and/or god, and/or gods,
and/or etc.
Agnosticism is the position that whether or not there is a God and/or
god and/or gos and or etc. is unknowable and unproveable.
And these three form an invalid false trilemma.
Moving toward Thiesm you begin to think, you don't know, but lean
toward, "there might be." until the end position where you are
positive there is, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
Moving toward Athiesm you begin to think, you don't know but think
there probably isn't until you reach the end where you are positive
there is not, but there is no absolute proof (although you are
convinced there is).
No. They are based on the unjustified assumption that the theist's
irrelevant belief object even applies outside theism.
Why do so many theists get it wrong?
And why do they feel they get to lecture us about a strawman?
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Last of All" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 09:27:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:16 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that the theist's common usage
"definition" of atheists and agnostics
Outside of common usage, definitions are useless and irrelevant.
Common usage is the definition. Society agrees on definitions so that
communication is possible.
In time, definitions change as common usage changes, language evolves,
but, in the meantime, to insist on a private definition is a
"strawman" argument - in conversation, one needs to be relatively
confident that if one looks up a word in the dictionary, one knows
what the other said.
There are three problems with the athiest making up his own
definitions at the onset: 1) It's dishonest - it's kind of like
throwing out the dictionary and making up your own words to fit the
available tiles in Scrabble. 2)By ignoring the common usage and
creating your own, you create an athiest religion, since, in so doing,
you create an athiest dogma. (you are asking us to believe your
definition instead of common usage) and 3) It renders communication
impossible because there is no agreement on the definition of the
words used between communicators.
It reminds me of years ago when I had a Korean girlfriend and a
Jordanian friend. He was proud to prepare us a traditional Jordanian
meal, but in so doing, insulted my girlfriend because the Jordanian
(Arabic) word for "chicken" is pronounced the same as a Korean word
for "vagina," and neither could understand that they were using
different words. Thus communication broke down and a friendship was
nearly lost.
Terrell
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 11:10:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:27:19 GMT, Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:16 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that the theist's common usage
"definition" of atheists and agnostics
Outside of common usage, definitions are useless and irrelevant.
Common usage is the definition. Society agrees on definitions so that
communication is possible.
And common usage gets words wrong regularly, that are outside its
expertise.
Atheist/atheism is just one example.
What common usage thinks they are, is incorrect. Because it does not
describe what we actually are.
It invents a position we don't have based on presumptions that only
apply to theists inside their religion.
In time, definitions change as common usage changes, language evolves,
but, in the meantime, to insist on a private definition is a
"strawman" argument - in conversation, one needs to be relatively
Why lie about a "private definition"? IT'S WHAT DESCRIBES US
ACCURATELY.
confident that if one looks up a word in the dictionary, one knows
what the other said.
No. Dictionaries are just starting points. Do they tell biologists
what evolution means? Mathematicians what a manifold, sheaf and a
whole slew of other words mean?
When people use dictionaries to tell us what our position is, and get
it wrong, we correct them. We even point to the definition in many
dictionaries that is accurate. But for some reason many of them are
too arrogantly rude to accept that.
There are three problems with the athiest making up his own
We're not doing that. Why lie about it?
definitions at the onset: 1) It's dishonest - it's kind of like
throwing out the dictionary and making up your own words to fit the
available tiles in Scrabble.
Why are you so dishonest? WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. Theists redefined the
word (specifically the RC church) to fit their doctrines, which don't
even apply outside their religion.
2)By ignoring the common usage and
creating your own, you create an athiest religion, since, in so doing,
We're not doing that either, liar.
Do you honestly imagine that common usage gets to determine our
position?
What part of WHEN IT'S THE LABEL FOR OUR POSITION IT HAS TO GET OUR
POSITION RIGHT are you pretending you don't understand?
you create an athiest dogma. (you are asking us to believe your
definition instead of common usage) and 3) It renders communication
impossible because there is no agreement on the definition of the
words used between communicators.
No. What renders communication impossible is assholes who refuse to
grant that our point of view isn't what they tell us it is.
It reminds me of years ago when I had a Korean girlfriend and a
Jordanian friend. He was proud to prepare us a traditional Jordanian
meal, but in so doing, insulted my girlfriend because the Jordanian
(Arabic) word for "chicken" is pronounced the same as a Korean word
for "vagina," and neither could understand that they were using
different words. Thus communication broke down and a friendship was
nearly lost.
So what?
Terrell
That explains it.
http://lastofall.blogspot.com/
Conservatives love America for what she was and hate her for what she
is ... Liberals love America for what she is, but realize there's room
for improvement.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 05:41:18 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com>
in news message <0b5ul190fmabggmq56str799c4n2kiuste@4ax.com> wrote:
[---]
To some extent all people are Agnostics with Theism and Atheism at
opposite ends of the spectrum.
I'm not an agnostic. If God® existed, why couldn't we detect it?
If we couldn't detect it in any way, what difference does it make if
it "exists"?
(Why do you capitalize common nouns?)
Liz #658 BAAWA
I think that naming your ignorance God and pretending that,
having named it, you have converted ignorance to knowledge
is a sorry approach to the unknown. -- John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 06:38:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism which, to me, would be the default
position, the existance of a God, god or gods is unknown or
unknowable.
:
Utter Tommy-Rot.
The default position is never having any inkling that such a mythical
beastie is even under consideration as to it's erstwhile existence,
(or not).
Not having even got to the point of requiring the invention, nor
juggling of same.
The knowability or otherwise of an entity which has not even entered
into one's mind is entirely moot.
Agnostics are those who, having been presented with the concept, toss
and turn it over in their mind.
Understandee???
Comprende?
That is "atheism".
Nothing more.
Bogus "Dictionary definitions" notwithstanding.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 07:06:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:39:43 GMT, Last of All <LastOfAll@nospam.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:25:27 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a position. Atheism is the lack of a position concerning the
existence of gods.
That sounds more like Agnosticism which, to me, would be the default
position, the existance of a God, god or gods is unknown or
unknowable.
No.
Why do you imagine that anybody outside your religion has to start off
from your religious presumptions?
They don't even apply.
Atheists haven't got anything to be agnostic about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
25 Oct 2005 08:36:47 PM |
|
|
--removed cross-posting--
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
er...no, it's simply the lack of faith. Atheism means not believing in
god. The theist holds a position that has no evidence or rational
basis. Get it? The atheist does not hold that position.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I've never seen or heard of any, so I don't have any reason to believe
there are any....hence I'm ascreemingblueants. But since I don't know
of any people who do believe in them, I had to invent the word and it
is irrelevant.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual- by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
Those that were not invented by humans were discovered by humans.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Oh? then tell us about what god is, and how god works. The physics of
god. I'm anxious to read about it! teach me.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 11:19:53 AM |
|
|
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
"I've never seen or heard of any, so I don't have any reason to believe
there are any....hence I'm ascreemingblueants. But since I don't know
of any people who do believe in them, I had to invent the word and it
is irrelevant."
I find it far more plausible that there could be Screaming Blue Ants
than a deity that defies the laws of physics and biology that he/she/it
supposedly creatied. Many creatures scream (not many insects, though).
Many creatures are blue (no ants that I've ever heard of). There are
ants all over the place. Hence, if some biologist told me Screaming
Blue Ants lived on Madagasgar, I would shrug my shoulders and would
want to got there to see them. If the biologist was lying I'd think
he's an *****. On the other hand, if a theist told me jesus was
holding a party next door, I wouldn't even bother to interrupt ironing
my clothes to go see, and I HATE ironing my clothes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "L.Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 04:26:29 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
"I've never seen or heard of any, so I don't have any reason to believe
there are any....hence I'm ascreemingblueants. But since I don't know
of any people who do believe in them, I had to invent the word and it
is irrelevant."
I find it far more plausible that there could be Screaming Blue Ants
than a deity that defies the laws of physics and biology that he/she/it
supposedly creatied. Many creatures scream (not many insects, though).
Many creatures are blue (no ants that I've ever heard of)
well, there was that one time I was spraypainting some parts to an old
truck blue, they were layed on cardboard on the ground and the overspay
accidently painted a couple dozen ants blue, and as it was oil based
paint they reacted very badly to it and thrashed about something awful,
and me being hard of hearing couldn't tell whether or not they were
screaming, I could only imagine they would be as I was able to
empathize with them I know I'd've been screaming mad if some ***** had
spray painted me, anyhow I can claim to have seen blue ants
.. There are
ants all over the place. Hence, if some biologist told me Screaming
Blue Ants lived on Madagasgar, I would shrug my shoulders and would
want to got there to see them. If the biologist was lying I'd think
he's an *****. On the other hand, if a theist told me jesus was
holding a party next door, I wouldn't even bother to interrupt ironing
my clothes to go see, and I HATE ironing my clothes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
27 Oct 2005 09:20:49 AM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 18:36:47 -0700, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
--removed cross-posting--
Bible John wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
er...no, it's simply the lack of faith. Atheism means not believing in
god. The theist holds a position that has no evidence or rational
basis. Get it? The atheist does not hold that position.
2. If you say that atheism needs no evidence to support it because it is
a position about the lack of something, then do you have other positions
you hold based upon lack of evidence...like say, screaming blue ants?
Do you hold the position that they do not exist or that you lack belief
in them, too?
I've never seen or heard of any, so I don't have any reason to believe
there are any....hence I'm ascreemingblueants. But since I don't know
of any people who do believe in them, I had to invent the word and it
is irrelevant.
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual- by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
Those that were not invented by humans were discovered by humans.
Yes I have taken Phil and Critical Thought, Intro to Astronomy and can
say using the Theory of Dynamics that it seems very obvious that God
exists.
Oh? then tell us about what god is, and how god works. The physics of
god. I'm anxious to read about it! teach me.
I HATE people who are sarkier than me! (:-D
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 02:57:17 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 25 October 2005 9:28 pm
john.doggett@x-files.gov wrote:
Sadly there are far more Atheists here than Cults. I estimate that 95%
of the population of free.christians is atheistic. So it probably makes
sense to learn how to debate with them and the other religions. yes
Apologetics does go into other religions, and atheism, and not just
cults.
1. If you say that atheism needs no evidence or reason, then you are
holding a position that has no evidence or rational basis? If so, then
isn't that simply faith?
I don't understand that statement. It is the lack of evidence and a
reasoning ability that many have shed their belief in gods. Now if you are
saying that those who do not believe in gods simply for no other reason
than that they just don't believe, then I would agree with you that they
are just as ignorant as those who do believe in gods.
But some of use who do not believe in gods have a more substantial
background in the subject than you do. Some of us actually have a formal
study in theology and in the ancient languages of scripture. Some of us
have even had access to more than one ancient manuscript or at least an
exact facsimile of one.
But I doubt seriously whether you could ever begin to understand that
because your studied reasoning is nil as it is with most Fundies.
Until you could answer three little questions, you will never have even an
iota to discuss the subject adequately because you will be operating from a
foundation of ignorance. Perhaps you might show us your expertise in
things biblical by answering three little questions. So far, not one
Fundie has ever attempted to do so. But here they are just in case you
feel like being honest and not a Liar for Jesus.
**********
How does one determine which might deceive the reader:
vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem lemor lekh mene
et-yisrael veet-yehuda
OR THIS
vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael
**********
Can you explain what we should do:
lo-taasu avel bamishpat lo-tisa fenei-dal velo tehdarpenei gadol betsedek
tishpot amitekha
OR THIS
me krinete ina me krithete
**********
Which of these is the basis of Christian belief and which do you believe:
hos de an blasphemese eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis ton
aiona all enochos estin aioniou kriseos
OR THIS
in hoc omnis qui credit iustificatur
OR THIS
horate toinun oti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon
OR THIS
te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos kai touto ouk ex humon theou
to doron ouk ex ergon hina me tis kauchesetai
**********
I bet ten thousand to one, that you avoid answering these questions.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions for Atheists |
26 Oct 2005 11:21:24 AM |
|
|
Bible John <john.doggett@x-files.gov> said:
<...>
3. How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God?
The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute
they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the
physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people
contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how
do you account for them?
I always thought that God was held by theologians not to be the author
of the laws of logic, or at least, God had no choice but to adopt
them. This concept was deemed necessary because otherwise,
contradictory things can be true about God, and/or, nothing can be
said or known about God. But theologians like Augustine certainly had
things they wanted to say about God.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
