| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2003 03:50:43 AM |
| Object: |
Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Dana wrote:
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
Atheism teaches?
A = without
theism = god belief
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What ideology? Your warped interpretation of just exactly what is
atheism?
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
.
|
|
| User: "CB" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
20 Sep 2003 04:40:31 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030920034410.22581A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Dana wrote:
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
Atheism teaches?
A = without
theism = god belief
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What ideology? Your warped interpretation of just exactly what is
atheism?
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you analyze
Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
--
CB
Twelve-step programs teach us that recovery can only begin after you've
bottomed out. If the Democrats are going to bounce back in 2004, they need
to stop living in denial and start accepting responsibility for their
spectacular crash-and-burn. Replacing Terry McAuliffe is a good first step.
Especially now that the pool of available Democrats with time on their hands
just got so much bigger.
--Arianna Huffington
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/110702.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "DPR" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
20 Sep 2003 08:10:58 PM |
|
|
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:bkihgn$ed7$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030920034410.22581A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Dana wrote:
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
Atheism teaches?
Yes Carol, Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
That is the belief of secular humanists and Atheists like you, Joni, Dave,
and bobbie.
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as well as other
atheists who claim there is no God. If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity, as you would not have a belief. But you
prove daily that you do have a belief about God, hence you cannot be an
atheist by the definition you give.
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you analyze
Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
--
CB
Twelve-step programs teach us that recovery can only begin after you've
bottomed out. If the Democrats are going to bounce back in 2004, they need
to stop living in denial and start accepting responsibility for their
spectacular crash-and-burn. Replacing Terry McAuliffe is a good first
step.
Especially now that the pool of available Democrats with time on their
hands
just got so much bigger.
--Arianna Huffington
http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/110702.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
20 Sep 2003 09:33:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Dana P "Strawman" Rafaniello wrote:
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Dana wrote:
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
Atheism teaches?
Yes Carol, Atheism teaches that there is no God,
Where is that written? That is what you need to believe. However, it is
not so.
hence no God-given rights.
Before I would give any credence that any "rights" have been given to me
by any gods, I would need to see evidence to that effect. Got any?
That is the belief of secular humanists and Atheists like you, Joni, Dave,
and bobbie.
I think Bob has identified himself as other than a secular humanist and I
don't know about the others.
I do believe it is up to them, not to you, to identify what they consider
themselves to be.
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as well as other
atheists who claim there is no God.
There is nothing about being an atheist which dictates that an atheist
must claim there are no gods. All atheism means is that one lives ones
life without any theism. No denial of anything is required.
If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be
keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity,
as you would not have a belief.
I think the first amendment would disagree with your notion that I may not
speak about any particular subject.
But you prove daily that you do have a belief about God,
About which gods?
hence you cannot be an atheist by the definition you give.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it means absolutely
nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I live my life without theism and that is all a-theism means.
Like wise a-religion and a-gnositicism.
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you analyze
Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
Sorry, but all gods, goddesses and other imaginary entities are of the
same realm as sky pixies.
Won't catch me praying to any of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.the-brights.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "DPR" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
20 Sep 2003 10:58:06 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030920212342.15107C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Dana P "Strawman" Rafaniello wrote:
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Dana wrote:
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
Atheism teaches?
Yes Carol, Atheism teaches that there is no God,
hence no God-given rights.
That is the belief of secular humanists and Atheists like you, Joni,
Dave,
and bobbie.
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as well as
other
atheists who claim there is no God.
There is nothing about being an atheist which dictates that an atheist
must claim there are no gods.
An atheist by the definition you provided above would have no opinion of any
God or Gods, as that person does not have a belief in any God or Gods. Hence
that person would never make a claim one way or the other over a God or
Gods.
..
If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be
keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity,
as you would not have a belief.
I think the first amendment would disagree with your notion that I may not
speak about any particular subject.
If you claim to be an atheist with the definition you give above, you would
have nothing to say about the subject.
But you prove daily that you do have a belief about God,
About which gods?
The one's you are always stressing over.
hence you cannot be an atheist by the definition you give.
I live my life without theism and that is all a-theism means.
But you do have a belief about theism, hence you cannot be an atheist. If
you were an atheist you would not have nothing to say over religious
matters. So if you are claiming to be an atheist using the above definition,
keep your trap shut, as you say you do not have a belief, hence you have no
knowledge of the subject.
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you analyze
Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
Just like carol got busted over her ignorance of our Dual sovereignty issue,
when she claimed the USSC never acknowledged that we have a system of
government based on the dual sovereignty of the states and the feds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
20 Sep 2003 11:19:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as well as
other atheists who claim there is no God.
There is nothing about being an atheist which dictates that an atheist
must claim there are no gods.
An atheist by the definition you provided above would have no opinion of any
God or Gods, as that person does not have a belief in any God or Gods. Hence
that person would never make a claim one way or the other over a God or
Gods.
That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
Not believing something to exist or to be true doesn't prevent or prohibit
having opinions.
Just what exactly constitutes making a claim one way or the
other _ O V E R _ a god or gods?
Do your believe in Zarathustra?
If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be
keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity,
as you would not have a belief.
I think the first amendment would disagree with your notion that I may not
speak about any particular subject.
If you claim to be an atheist with the definition you give above, you would
have nothing to say about the subject.
According to what rules? Yours?
But you prove daily that you do have a belief about God,
About which gods?
The one's you are always stressing over.
I have no god stress.
According to your definition, one can only be an atheist if one is silent
on the subject.
Is the your don't ask don't tell policy?
It is most entertaining.
hence you cannot be an atheist by the definition you give.
I live my life without theism and that is all a-theism means.
But you do have a belief about theism, hence you cannot be an atheist.
a-theism means without theism. It is not a-opinionism, silly.
If you were an atheist you would not have nothing to say over religious
matters. So if you are claiming to be an atheist using the above definition,
keep your trap shut, as you say you do not have a belief, hence you have no
knowledge of the subject.
Who died and left you boss? Your god?
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you analyze
Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
Just like carol got busted over her ignorance of our Dual sovereignty issue,
when she claimed the USSC never acknowledged that we have a system of
government based on the dual sovereignty of the states and the feds.
When was it I was asked to "acknowledge" such a thing?
Please provide a referent in which I expressed opinion about dual
sovereignty.
Could it be that you have those with whom you disagree mixed up?
--------------------------
"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Roscoe, 1820
.
|
|
|
| User: "DPR" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
21 Sep 2003 12:30:47 AM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030920230319.26618A-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as well as
other atheists who claim there is no God.
There is nothing about being an atheist which dictates that an atheist
must claim there are no gods.
An atheist by the definition you provided above would have no opinion of
any
God or Gods, as that person does not have a belief in any God or Gods.
Hence
that person would never make a claim one way or the other over a God or
Gods.
That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
No that is a basic fact. If a person has no knowledge of God or Gods, why
would that person need or want to make any claims about God or Gods. Kind of
goes against your drfinition of atheism.
If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be
keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity,
as you would not have a belief.
I think the first amendment would disagree with your notion that I may
not
speak about any particular subject.
If you claim to be an atheist with the definition you give above, you
would
have nothing to say about the subject.
According to what rules? Yours?
Basic logic. But you already have proven that you are not an atheist by the
definition you posted, as you do have a belief about God or Gods, hence by
your own definition you are not an atheist.
But you prove daily that you do have a belief about God,
About which gods?
The one's you are always stressing over.
I have no god stress.
You sure do, or else you would not be trying to force your beliefs and views
on everyone else.
According to your definition, one can only be an atheist if one is silent
on the subject.
Well if they are absent a belief, they would have no reason to say anything
on the subject.
hence you cannot be an atheist by the definition you give.
I live my life without theism and that is all a-theism means.
But you do have a belief about theism, hence you cannot be an atheist.
a-theism means without theism. It is not a-opinionism, silly.
And that does not describe you or other secular humanists like yourself. You
clearly have religious beliefs.
If you were an atheist you would not have nothing to say over religious
matters. So if you are claiming to be an atheist using the above
definition,
keep your trap shut, as you say you do not have a belief, hence you have
no
knowledge of the subject.
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in
the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not
someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you
analyze
Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
Just like carol got busted over her ignorance of our Dual sovereignty
issue,
when she claimed the USSC never acknowledged that we have a system of
government based on the dual sovereignty of the states and the feds.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--
There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the Law of Nature and
the grant of God Almighty, who has given to all men a natural right to be
free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if
they please."
James Otis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
21 Sep 2003 01:41:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as well as
other atheists who claim there is no God.
There is nothing about being an atheist which dictates that an atheist
must claim there are no gods.
An atheist by the definition you provided above would have no
opinion of any God or Gods, as that person does not have a belief in any
God or Gods. Hence that person would never make a claim one way or the
other over a God or Gods.< < <
That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
No that is a basic fact.
If that is the case, just prove it.
<< If a person has no knowledge of God or Gods, why would that person need
or want to make any claims about God or Gods. Kind of goes against your
drfinition of atheism.>>
My definition of a - theism as being without a theism doesn't prohibit me
from discussing the issue.
What kind of claims have I made about god(s) which you think "goes
against" my definition of atheism?
If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be
keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity,
as you would not have a belief.
I think the first amendment would disagree with your notion that I
may not speak about any particular subject.< < < <
If you claim to be an atheist with the definition you give above, you
would have nothing to say about the subject.
According to what rules? Yours?
Basic logic.
Prove your alleged logic.
But you already have proven that you are not an atheist by the
definition you posted, as you do have a belief about God or Gods, hence by
your own definition you are not an atheist.
If your claim that I have proven I am not an atheist, that must mean I am
a theist, no? If I am a theist, perhaps you might want to reveal to me
just exactly which theism you think I subscribe to. Inquiring minds want
to know, particularly my inquiring mind.
But you prove daily that you do have a belief about God,
About which gods?
The one's you are always stressing over.
I have no god stress.
You sure do, or else you would not be trying to force your beliefs and views
on everyone else.
And just what views might I be forcing on everyone else?
According to your definition, one can only be an atheist if one is silent
on the subject.
Well if they are absent a belief, they would have no reason to say anything
on the subject.
And you think that is logical?
Many people do not "believe in" communism or socialism, but may have
plenty to say about it.
Likewise many people do not subscribe to "atheism," but have plenty to say
about it.
You are an example of this.
hence you cannot be an atheist by the definition you give.
I live my life without theism and that is all a-theism means.
But you do have a belief about theism, hence you cannot be an atheist.
a-theism means without theism. It is not a-opinionism, silly.
And that does not describe you or other secular humanists like yourself. You
clearly have religious beliefs.
And what would they be?
If you were an atheist you would not have nothing to say over religious
matters. So if you are claiming to be an atheist using the above
definition,
keep your trap shut, as you say you do not have a belief, hence you have
no knowledge of the subject.
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in
the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not
someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you
analyze Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
Just like carol got busted over her ignorance of our Dual sovereignty
issue,
when she claimed the USSC never acknowledged that we have a system of
government based on the dual sovereignty of the states and the feds.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--
There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the Law of Nature and
the grant of God Almighty, who has given to all men a natural right to be
free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so, if
they please."
James Otis
this James Otis?
<<In 1769, at the height of his popularity and influence, Otis was pulled
from the public stage. He had infuriated a Boston custom-house official
with a vicious newspaper attack; the official beat Otis on his head with a
cane. For the remainder of his life, Otis was subject to long bouts of
mental instability. He was unable to participate in public affairs and
spent most of his time wandering through the streets of Boston, enduring
the taunts of a populace that had quickly forgotten his contributions.
Otis was struck and killed by lightning in May 1783.>>
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1204.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
21 Sep 2003 04:53:04 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030921132655.11909B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as
well as
other atheists who claim there is no God.
There is nothing about being an atheist which dictates that an
atheist
must claim there are no gods.
An atheist by the definition you provided above would have no
opinion of any God or Gods, as that person does not have a belief in any
God or Gods. Hence that person would never make a claim one way or the
other over a God or Gods.< < <
That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
No that is a basic fact.
<< If a person has no knowledge of God or Gods, why would that person need
or want to make any claims about God or Gods. Kind of goes against your
drfinition of atheism.>>
My definition of a - theism as being without a theism doesn't prohibit me
from discussing the issue.
Than by your definition you are not an atheist, as you have a belief about
theism.
If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be
keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity,
as you would not have a belief.
I think the first amendment would disagree with your notion that I
may not speak about any particular subject.< < < <
If you claim to be an atheist with the definition you give above,
you
would have nothing to say about the subject.
According to what rules? Yours?
Basic logic.
But you already have proven that you are not an atheist by the
definition you posted, as you do have a belief about God or Gods, hence
by
your own definition you are not an atheist.
But you prove daily that you do have a belief about God,
About which gods?
The one's you are always stressing over.
I have no god stress.
You sure do, or else you would not be trying to force your beliefs and
views
on everyone else.
According to your definition, one can only be an atheist if one is
silent
on the subject.
Well if they are absent a belief, they would have no reason to say
anything
on the subject.
Many people do not "believe in" communism or socialism, but may have
plenty to say about it.
It is not that they do not believe in communisim or socialism, but the fact
that those two types of governments are dangerous to individual liberty and
freedom, that is why they voice their opinions about them.
Likewise many people do not subscribe to "atheism," but have plenty to say
about it.
hence you cannot be an atheist by the definition you give.
I live my life without theism and that is all a-theism means.
But you do have a belief about theism, hence you cannot be an
atheist.
a-theism means without theism. It is not a-opinionism, silly.
And that does not describe you or other secular humanists like yourself.
You
clearly have religious beliefs.
If you were an atheist you would not have nothing to say over
religious
matters. So if you are claiming to be an atheist using the above
definition,
keep your trap shut, as you say you do not have a belief, hence you
have
no knowledge of the subject.
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously
synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?),
in
the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic
or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not
someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you
analyze Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
Just like carol got busted over her ignorance of our Dual
sovereignty
issue,
when she claimed the USSC never acknowledged that we have a system
of
government based on the dual sovereignty of the states and the feds.
--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--
There can be no prescription old enough to supersede the Law of Nature
and
the grant of God Almighty, who has given to all men a natural right to
be
free, and they have it ordinarily in their power to make themselves so,
if
they please."
James Otis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
21 Sep 2003 05:23:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, dpr wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, DPR wrote:
A = without
theism = god belief
And that does not describe you or dave, Joni, and bobbie, as
well as other atheists who claim there is no God. < < < < < < <
There is nothing about being an atheist which dictates that an
atheist must claim there are no gods.
An atheist by the definition you provided above would have no
opinion of any God or Gods, as that person does not have a belief in any
God or Gods. Hence that person would never make a claim one way or the
other over a God or Gods.< < < < <
That is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.
No that is a basic fact.
That is not a fact or a basic fact.
<< If a person has no knowledge of God or Gods, why would that person need
or want to make any claims about God or Gods. Kind of goes against your
drfinition of atheism.>>
You may be perplexed as to why any atheist might want to be involved in a
discussion about theism. That is your problem.
What is ridiculous is your claim that atheists should not discuss god(s)
or theism.
My definition of a - theism as being without a theism doesn't prohibit me
from discussing the issue.
Than [sic] by your definition you are not an atheist, as you have a
belief about theism.
You are mistaken if you think that a-theism means being without any ideas
about theism or without a right to discuss theism.
If as you say atheism is an absence of
belief in Gods, well then you would be
keeping your trap shut over issues of
religion, in paticular christianity,
as you would not have a belief.
Keeping one's trap shut. Amazing.
This is a most interesting gag rule you are proposing. I don't think
atheists would want to be bound by your idea, which is taking away first
amendment right of free speech.
I think the first amendment would disagree with your notion that I
may not speak about any particular subject.< < < <
If you claim to be an atheist with the definition you give above,
you would have nothing to say about the subject.
According to what rules? Yours?
Basic logic.
But you already have proven that you are not an atheist by the
definition you posted, as you do have a belief about God or Gods, hence
by your own definition you are not an atheist.
But you prove daily that you do have a belief about God,
About which gods?
The one's you are always stressing over.
I have no god stress.
You sure do, or else you would not be trying to force your beliefs and
views on everyone else.
Didn't I ask which beliefs of mine I am trying to force on everyone else?
Thought I did. Whatever. I am certainly asking it now. What beliefs of
mine am I trying to force on everyone.
According to your definition, one can only be an atheist if one is
silent on the subject.
Well if they are absent a belief, they would have no reason to say
reason on the subject.
That is your unsubstantiated opinion.
Many people do not "believe in" communism or socialism, but may have
plenty to say about it.
It is not that they do not believe in communisim or socialism, but the fact
that those two types of governments are dangerous to individual liberty and
freedom, that is why they voice their opinions about them.
There have been many examples throughout history of religion being
dangerous to individual liberty and freedom.
Likewise many people do not subscribe to "atheism," but have plenty to say
about it.
hence you cannot be an atheist by the definition you give.
I live my life without theism and that is all a-theism means.
But you do have a belief about theism, hence you cannot be an
atheist.
a-theism means without theism. It is not a-opinionism, silly.
And that does not describe you or other secular humanists like yourself.
you clearly have religious beliefs.
If you were an atheist you would not have nothing to say over
religious matters. So if you are claiming to be an atheist using the above
definition, keep your trap shut, as you say you do not have a belief,
hence you have no knowledge of the subject. < < < < <
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously
synergistic.
What does a system that "believed" (do systems
"believe"?), in the superiority of the state, whether murderously
syndergistic or synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not
someone shares your zeal for your particular deity? < < < < < < < < <
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is" or "alone" for us? Can you
analyze Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
No she is busy praying to her sky pixie.
Just like carol got busted over her ignorance of our Dual
sovereignty issue, when she claimed the USSC never acknowledged that we
have a system of government based on the dual sovereignty of the states
and the feds. < < < < <
. . . James Otis
Would that be this James Otis?
www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/biography/
www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1204.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: How ACLU's Lawsuit to Stop the Recall Is Bogus |
20 Sep 2003 06:40:53 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Dana wrote:
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights.
Atheism teaches?
A = without
theism = god belief
That ideology coupled with a system that
believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
What ideology? Your warped interpretation of just exactly what is
atheism?
What does a system that "believed" (do systems "believe"?), in the
superiority of the state, whether murderously syndergistic or
synergistically murderous, have to do with whether or not someone
shares your zeal for your particular deity?
And what is "murderously synergistic" supposed to mean?
Can you define the meaning of "is"
http://www.m-w.com
or "alone" for us?
http://www.m-w.com
Secular Humanism so that it resembles fluffy clouds?
I will leave the fluffy clouds for those who actually think they have a
ticket to a mythological place called heaven.
Let's talk about discuss the questions I raised.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
