| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
30 Jul 2004 04:42:39 PM |
| Object: |
Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
From: "stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain>
Organization: mirth
Subject: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:40:22 -0700
User-Agent: Pan/0.13.3 (That cat's something I can't explain)
Message-Id: <pan.2004.07.22.19.40.22.686417@localhost.localdomain>
Newsgroups:
alt.slack,alt.atheism,alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.wicca,alt.consp
iracy
References: <45ednbv5C5_nVWLd4p2dnA@io.com>
<13473-40FFCB65-46@storefull-3278.bay.webtv.net>
X-Pan-Internal-Attribution: On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:12:53 -0400, Swiss Army
wrote:
X-Pan-Internal-Sendlater-Newsgroups:
alt.slack,alt.atheism,alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.wicca,alt.consp
iracy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:12:53 -0400, Swiss Army wrote:
Look at the lusher Atheist accusing others of assumptions while
assuming that the poster is a believer in GOD.
Zealots flew planes into
buildings, an Atheist can be a Zealot as well.
Yes, theism is destructive whether it be Islam, or Christianity.
Oh my, please enlighten me as to how an atheist (no capital letter unless
it is the first word in a sentence) can be a zealot (no capital z as it
isn't the first word in the sentence). Note: Any response is sure to be
*very* entertaining! :D
I usually wouldn't waste time trying to inform a fool but you caught
me on a good day.
{MMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHH}
God both does and does not exist. God/not-God is beyond human
understanding.
It dosen't matter what you believe because the truth is the truth. Your
belief does change your immediate reality but not the big picture.
Atheists here appear to be hostile, aggressive, frustrated and
self-righteous, certainly this is not the hallmark of Truth.
Hearty applause to you for so aptly demonstrating you're not only a fool,
but a drooling idiot. I'm going to nominate your response for TQOTM under
the idiocy catagory. Rejoyce as you are commanded, slave!
.
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shiftthe burden of proof to those who do not share the theist belief? |
06 Aug 2004 12:41:56 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
...a god might exist ...
That argument is characteristic of the theist.
The problem is that there is no reason at all to assume there might be a
magically invisible space pixie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do not share the theist belief? |
06 Aug 2004 02:05:38 PM |
|
|
In article <EpPQc.84873$8_6.14330@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...a god might exist ...
That argument is characteristic of the theist.
Re gods, claims of actual existence or necessary existence are
characteristic of theists, as any dictionary will confirm, but
speculations of possible existence or non-existence are characteristic
of agnostics or non-fanatical atheists, and are anathema to actual
theists.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) seems unable to make
contact with reality on this issue.
The problem is that there is no reason at all to assume there might be a
magically invisible space pixie.
There is as much reason for true theists to assume what they assume as
there is for fanatical Gnostic anti-godists like Septic (of the
Magically Invisible Space Pixies) to claim knowledge that they do not
have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shiftthe burden of proof to those who do not share the theist belief? |
06 Aug 2004 07:14:06 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <EpPQc.84873$8_6.14330@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...a god might exist ...
That argument is characteristic of the theist.
Re gods, claims of actual existence or necessary existence are
characteristic of theists ...
You are mistaken, your claim that there might be a magically invisible
space pixie anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you
can point to and say, "Here is what I am talking about," because, you
argue _ad ignorantiam_, there is no proof the hypothesis is false, is
chracteristic of the theist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do not share the theist belief? |
06 Aug 2004 08:55:09 PM |
|
|
In article <i9VQc.238540$JR4.15967@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <EpPQc.84873$8_6.14330@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...a god might exist ...
That argument is characteristic of the theist.
Re gods, claims of actual existence or necessary existence are
characteristic of theists ...
You are mistaken,
Show me any dictionary or encyclopedia definition of "theism' or
'theist' which does not show YOU to be a liar, before saying that.
your claim that there might be a magically invisible
space pixie anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you
can point to and say, "Here is what I am talking about," because, you
argue _ad ignorantiam_, there is no proof the hypothesis is false, is
chracteristic of the theist.
Do you claim to have proof that 'there might be a god' is false?
If not, I am free to presume that there is a possibility that 'there
might be a god'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shiftthe burden of proof to those who do not share the theist belief? |
07 Aug 2004 09:03:58 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <i9VQc.238540$JR4.15967@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <EpPQc.84873$8_6.14330@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
...a god might exist ...
That argument is characteristic of the theist.
Re gods, claims of actual existence or necessary existence are
characteristic of theists ...
You are mistaken,
Show me any dictionary or encyclopedia definition of "theism' or
'theist' which does not show YOU to be a liar, before saying that.
your claim that there might be a magically invisible
space pixie anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you
can point to and say, "Here is what I am talking about," because, you
argue _ad ignorantiam_, there is no proof the hypothesis is false, is
chracteristic of the theist.
Do you claim to have proof that 'there might be a god' is false?
If not, I am free to presume that there is a possibility that 'there
might be a god'.
There is no reason to assume your conclusion that there might be a
magically invisible space pixie anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence you can point to and say, "Here is what I am talking
about." Assuming your conclusion is fallacy of begging the question.
Also, to argue as you do that there is no proof your hypothesis is false
is what characterizes argument from ignorance (argument _ad
ignorantiam_), knucklehead.
The fallacy lies in assuming that your theory, "There might be a
magically invisible god" is true unless proved false. See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do not share the theist belief? |
07 Aug 2004 03:23:25 PM |
|
|
In article <hj5Rc.89083$8_6.80316@attbi_s04>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Do you claim to have proof that 'there might be a god' is false?
If not, I am free to presume that there is a possibility that 'there
might be a god'.
There is no reason to assume your conclusion
I have not assumed any conclusion, I have merely PRESUMED that something
not known to be impossible is not known to be impossible.
Assuming your conclusion is fallacy of begging the question.
It is a fallacy that Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is
most familiar with through the commission of it.
As usual, Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) accuses
others of his own sins.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do not share the theist belief? |
05 Aug 2004 01:35:48 PM |
|
|
In article <GuuQc.93101$eM2.16783@attbi_s51>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
H.D.S wrote:
...
Speaking as a weak atheist, ...
A what? Aren't you the same H.D.S. who just showed his hand by joining
the theologs here in trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do
not share the theist belief through the sophistry of arguing that the
denial (the negation in logic), "There is no God as the theists assert"
is a positive assertion standing in need of proof?
As the acts described exist only in the delusional world of Septic (of
the Magically Invisible Space Pixies), no!
Why would any atheist ever join theists in trying to shift the burden of
proof to those who do not share the theist belief?
Delusion, again.
The way things stand theists are the only ones with anything (any thing)
evidence of the existence of which to demonstrate.
What about those Gnostic anti-theists like Septic (of the Magically
Invisible Space Pixies) who repeatedly claim to know what they can
neither demonstrate nor prove? They have at least as much to prove as
any theist, and at least as little proof.
"There are no gods as the theists claim" is not a claim
"There are no gods as the theists claim" is either a presumption or a
claim. Presumptions should properly be identified as such. Since "There
are no gods as the theists claim" is not so labeled, we may presume that
it is a claim.
As a claim. "There are no gods as the theists claim" bears the same
burden of proof as any other claim.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
05 Aug 2004 02:21:36 AM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2004 11:47:44 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message news:<2n77ktFtn0pdU1@uni-berlin.de>...
What Christopher fails to grasp is that some atheists
(including Christopher himself) are POSITIVE atheists, who
positively assert that God does not exist, and sincerely
believe the proposition "God does not exist" (or, more
accurately, "there are no gods") reflects reality. This then
gives rise to other beliefs that are implied by such a
position, thus forming a belief system.
Can you name any of those "other beliefs", that are necessarily
held by every 'positive atheist'?
Yes, I can. If one positively asserts (and sincerely believes) that
the proposition "there is no God or Gods" is true,
Failure right from the start. I am an atheist, and I do not assert
that there is no god. Try again.
then that
proposition implies many other propositions, including (but not
limited to) the following:
(1) The Bible is not the word of God.
(2) The Koran is not the word of God.
(3) Prayer is (for the most part) in vain.
(4) The 9-11 hijackers were not awared by God with paradise.
Et cetera. Now of course, a theist too could hold to some (or all) of
these propositions as well, but theism itself does not logically imply
these propositions the way positive atheism does. So, to be a positive
atheist is to (whether implicitly or explicitly) also believe in the
propositions above, as well as many others. Thus positive atheism
gives rise to a system of belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
05 Aug 2004 06:25:40 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ck3h0l1lhi95poh9lrognatd9plgti8in@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2004 11:47:44 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2n77ktFtn0pdU1@uni-berlin.de>...
What Christopher fails to grasp is that some atheists
(including Christopher himself) are POSITIVE atheists, who
positively assert that God does not exist, and sincerely
believe the proposition "God does not exist" (or, more
accurately, "there are no gods") reflects reality. This then
gives rise to other beliefs that are implied by such a
position, thus forming a belief system.
Can you name any of those "other beliefs", that are necessarily
held by every 'positive atheist'?
Yes, I can. If one positively asserts (and sincerely believes) that
the proposition "there is no God or Gods" is true,
Failure right from the start. I am an atheist, and I do not assert
that there is no god. Try again.
It is your failure, Thomas P. The post above is talking about atheists
who 'positively assert' there is no God. If you do not positively
assert that there is no God then you are not in the group that is
being discussed.
<rest discarded>
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
05 Aug 2004 02:04:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:25:40 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
<scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ck3h0l1lhi95poh9lrognatd9plgti8in@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2004 11:47:44 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2n77ktFtn0pdU1@uni-berlin.de>...
What Christopher fails to grasp is that some atheists
(including Christopher himself) are POSITIVE atheists, who
positively assert that God does not exist, and sincerely
believe the proposition "God does not exist" (or, more
accurately, "there are no gods") reflects reality. This then
gives rise to other beliefs that are implied by such a
position, thus forming a belief system.
Can you name any of those "other beliefs", that are necessarily
held by every 'positive atheist'?
Yes, I can. If one positively asserts (and sincerely believes) that
the proposition "there is no God or Gods" is true,
Failure right from the start. I am an atheist, and I do not assert
that there is no god. Try again.
It is your failure, Thomas P. The post above is talking about atheists
who 'positively assert' there is no God. If you do not positively
assert that there is no God then you are not in the group that is
being discussed.
<rest discarded>
Nope, it is still his failure. A belief system, or any system for
that matter, includes more than one element.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
06 Aug 2004 12:30:29 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 11:25:40 GMT, "Scot McDermid"
<scotmc@optNOSPAMonline.net> wrote:
"thomas p" <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:7ck3h0l1lhi95poh9lrognatd9plgti8in@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2004 11:47:44 -0700, (Nico
Demusopelous) wrote:
"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2n77ktFtn0pdU1@uni-berlin.de>...
What Christopher fails to grasp is that some atheists
(including Christopher himself) are POSITIVE atheists, who
positively assert that God does not exist, and sincerely
believe the proposition "God does not exist" (or, more
accurately, "there are no gods") reflects reality. This then
gives rise to other beliefs that are implied by such a
position, thus forming a belief system.
Can you name any of those "other beliefs", that are necessarily
held by every 'positive atheist'?
Yes, I can. If one positively asserts (and sincerely believes) that
the proposition "there is no God or Gods" is true,
Failure right from the start. I am an atheist, and I do not assert
that there is no god. Try again.
It is your failure, Thomas P. The post above is talking about
atheists
who 'positively assert' there is no God. If you do not positively
assert that there is no God then you are not in the group that is
being discussed.
<rest discarded>
Nope, it is still his failure. A belief system, or any system for
that matter, includes more than one element.
A system requires a minimum of two elements.
The statement "There is no God" can be made and supported-if someone
thought it worth the bother. Such is also said in the same way
christians do about other superstitions-its all something someone else
believes. (shrug)
--
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 Bush 2004/08/20040805
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nu-monet v7.0" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
02 Aug 2004 12:08:59 PM |
|
|
Icarus wrote:
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
Can you name any of those "other beliefs", that
are necessarily held by every 'positive atheist'?
I can name many atheist philosophers who can describe
the complexities of atheism, of which you seem to be
unfamiliar. Can you name a SINGLE atheist philosopher
who describes atheism in your simplistic terms?
Just one. One real one. Who is like, published and
*****, and not just your opinion or some other poster
to USENET.
C'mon. Try. SOMEBODY must have published something
to the effect that "an atheist is just someone who
doesn't believe in god", or some other simplistic
generalization.
Put up or shut up.
Have you ever read Bertrand Russell?
--
"There's a sizeable number of people
who prefer watching reruns of someone
wolfing down goat gonads to watching
the political conventions."
-- editorial columnist
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 03:09:37 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:08:59 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
<nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
Icarus wrote:
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
Can you name any of those "other beliefs", that
are necessarily held by every 'positive atheist'?
I can name many atheist philosophers who can describe
the complexities of atheism,
Go ahead and do it. There are different kinds of atheists. Atheism
itself is merely lack of belief in a deity. You will not be able to
come up with one positive belief required to be an atheist.
of which you seem to be
unfamiliar. Can you name a SINGLE atheist philosopher
who describes atheism in your simplistic terms?
Just one. One real one. Who is like, published and
*****, and not just your opinion or some other poster
to USENET.
C'mon. Try. SOMEBODY must have published something
to the effect that "an atheist is just someone who
doesn't believe in god", or some other simplistic
generalization.
Put up or shut up.
Have you ever read Bertrand Russell?
I certainly have. His reasons for being an atheist are based on
logic, but his atheism is the same as that all other atheists - lack
of belief in a god. Give us a quote from Russell that says anything
else. Put up or stop this utter nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nu-monet v7.0" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 07:55:46 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
I certainly have. His reasons for being an atheist are based on
logic, but his atheism is the same as that all other atheists - lack
of belief in a god. Give us a quote from Russell that says anything
else. Put up or stop this utter nonsense.
So, out of all the atheist philosophers out there,
you can't cite a *single* one who comes out and says
what you insist is *the* axiom of atheism?
I mean, every, single damn theist would say that *their*
#1 belief would *have* to be that god or gods exists.
So isn't is reasonable that there would be ONE atheist
philosopher, who just comes out and says: "The ONLY
thing that makes an atheist an atheist is that they
don't believe in god or gods", OR EVEN WORDS TO THAT
EFFECT.
And the dictionary is NOT a philosopher.
And YOU find ME a quote, or quit insisting that you
know what atheism means, even in its simplest definition.
--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy *****, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 10:11:41 AM |
|
|
"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
So, out of all the atheist philosophers out there,
you can't cite a *single* one who comes out and says
what you insist is *the* axiom of atheism?
I mean, every, single damn theist would say that *their*
#1 belief would *have* to be that god or gods exists.
That's because they are redunant. Obviously, if someone is a theist
she believes in god(s) and just as obviously, if a person is atheist
she does not believe in gods.
So isn't is reasonable that there would be ONE atheist
philosopher, who just comes out and says: "The ONLY
thing that makes an atheist an atheist is that they
don't believe in god or gods", OR EVEN WORDS TO THAT
EFFECT.
You're looking for an argument from authority, but that won't work
here.
And the dictionary is NOT a philosopher.
And philosophers aren't the fount of holy wisdom for atheists. You
must understand that you've been strongly affected by a revealed
religion, with its authoritative book and set of scriptures. I am not
right handed, therefore I am left handed. I am not theist, therefore
I am atheist. And that is all there is to it.
Your demand for a philosopher to say what people here are saying is
akin to looking at the reflection of a moon in a lake and mistaking it
for the real thing. A philospher can take something, pretty it up,
hang all sorts of ideological baggage and place it in a pretty
setting, but the reality is hanging unadorned overhead.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Vertigo" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 10:15:26 AM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
So, out of all the atheist philosophers out there,
you can't cite a *single* one who comes out and says
what you insist is *the* axiom of atheism?
I mean, every, single damn theist would say that *their*
#1 belief would *have* to be that god or gods exists.
That's because they are redunant. Obviously, if someone is a theist
she believes in god(s) and just as obviously, if a person is atheist
she does not believe in gods.
So isn't is reasonable that there would be ONE atheist
philosopher, who just comes out and says: "The ONLY
thing that makes an atheist an atheist is that they
don't believe in god or gods", OR EVEN WORDS TO THAT
You're looking for an argument from authority, but that won't work
here.
And the dictionary is NOT a philosopher.
And philosophers aren't the fount of holy wisdom for atheists. You
must understand that you've been strongly affected by a revealed
religion, with its authoritative book and set of scriptures. I am not
right handed, therefore I am left handed. I am not theist, therefore
I am atheist. And that is all there is to it.
Your demand for a philosopher to say what people here are saying is
akin to looking at the reflection of a moon in a lake and mistaking it
for the real thing. A philospher can take something, pretty it up,
hang all sorts of ideological baggage and place it in a pretty
setting, but the reality is hanging unadorned overhead.
Are you rejecting all of philosophy?
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant, surely at some point in
recorded history someone had the same ideas as you, and scribbled out a
pamphlet or a book.
I mean, personally, I've noticed that often other people have had the
same ideas as I have. Often they were better writers than me, too.
--
"You could give Aristotle a tutorial, and you could thrill him to the
core of his being ... Such is the privilege of living after Newton,
Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues."
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 01:47:29 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Vertigo <vertigo@alexandria.cc> wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
So, out of all the atheist philosophers out there,
you can't cite a *single* one who comes out and says
what you insist is *the* axiom of atheism?
I mean, every, single damn theist would say that *their*
#1 belief would *have* to be that god or gods exists.
That's because they are redunant. Obviously, if someone is a theist
she believes in god(s) and just as obviously, if a person is atheist
she does not believe in gods.
So isn't is reasonable that there would be ONE atheist
philosopher, who just comes out and says: "The ONLY
thing that makes an atheist an atheist is that they
don't believe in god or gods", OR EVEN WORDS TO THAT
You're looking for an argument from authority, but that won't work
here.
And the dictionary is NOT a philosopher.
And philosophers aren't the fount of holy wisdom for atheists. You
must understand that you've been strongly affected by a revealed
religion, with its authoritative book and set of scriptures. I am not
right handed, therefore I am left handed. I am not theist, therefore
I am atheist. And that is all there is to it.
Your demand for a philosopher to say what people here are saying is
akin to looking at the reflection of a moon in a lake and mistaking it
for the real thing. A philospher can take something, pretty it up,
hang all sorts of ideological baggage and place it in a pretty
setting, but the reality is hanging unadorned overhead.
Are you rejecting all of philosophy?
I'm pointing out atheism is not a philosophy, it's one fact of the
many thousands that make up a person.
I'm lefthanded. I'm an atheist. I've got blue eyes. I have long
hair. Know which one of those most affects my life? Being
lefthanded, because you freaking righthanders keep making things that
work backwards. After that, having long hair affects me most because
I have to put it up on hot days, and pin it back on other days.
Atheism affects me at the same level as hating to be exposed to
music outdoors or in stores does. I'm irritated by the actions of
others when they cross my path. No more than that.
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant, surely at some point in
recorded history someone had the same ideas as you, and scribbled out a
pamphlet or a book.
What firey pamphlet do you quote to explain why you live your life
as though there is no all-powerful alien pupermaster from M31
directing your every move with a mind-control beam? Me, I don't need
someone to give me permission not to think there's such a being, but
apparantly you guys do. So unless you're hypocrites, or you believe
in alien puppetmasters, you'll be able to produce these writings. On
the other hand, you may see the rank stupidity in demanding you
produce an authority for *every* thing you don't believe exists or is
true, in which case you get the point we're making.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Vertigo" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 01:55:32 PM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
Cardinal Vertigo <vertigo@alexandria.cc> wrote:
[snip]
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant, surely at some point in
recorded history someone had the same ideas as you, and scribbled out a
pamphlet or a book.
What firey pamphlet do you quote to explain why you live your life
as though there is no all-powerful alien pupermaster from M31
directing your every move with a mind-control beam? Me, I don't need
someone to give me permission not to think there's such a being, but
apparantly you guys do. So unless you're hypocrites, or you believe
in alien puppetmasters, you'll be able to produce these writings. On
the other hand, you may see the rank stupidity in demanding you
produce an authority for *every* thing you don't believe exists or is
true, in which case you get the point we're making.
Well, the thing is, no one on the ATHEIST TEAM seemed capable of writing
anything genuinely worth reading. So I was sort of hoping one of them
might cite something I hadn't heard of that might actually be worth the
time it took to flip through.
I suppose that was too much to hope.
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."
- Winston Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 03:52:15 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Vertigo <vertigo@alexandria.cc> wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
Cardinal Vertigo <vertigo@alexandria.cc> wrote:
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant, surely at some point in
recorded history someone had the same ideas as you, and scribbled out a
pamphlet or a book.
What firey pamphlet do you quote to explain why you live your life
as though there is no all-powerful alien puppetmaster from M31
directing your every move with a mind-control beam? Me, I don't need
someone to give me permission not to think there's such a being, but
apparantly you guys do. So unless you're hypocrites, or you believe
in alien puppetmasters, you'll be able to produce these writings. On
the other hand, you may see the rank stupidity in demanding you
produce an authority for *every* thing you don't believe exists or is
true, in which case you get the point we're making.
Well, the thing is, no one on the ATHEIST TEAM seemed capable of writing
anything genuinely worth reading. So I was sort of hoping one of them
might cite something I hadn't heard of that might actually be worth the
time it took to flip through.
This is a different thing altogether. First, there is no atheist
team, just as there is no "not believing in alien puppetmaster" team.
Second, there's a difference between something's being written by an
atheist, and something being a long philosophical tract on why there's
no alien puppetmaster, a term that's as applicable to the demiurge
most people worship as it is to the hypothetical being from Andromeda.
Given your response, you and the parvenue would both benefit from
reading Epictetus:
The beginning of philosophy is to know the condition of one's own
mind. If a man recognizes that this is in a weakly state, he will not
then want to apply it to questions of the greatest moment. As it is,
men who are not fit to swallow even a morsel buy whole treatises and
try to devour them. Accordingly they either vomit them up again, or
suffer from indigestion, whence come gripings, fluxions and fevers.
Whereas they should have stopped to consider their capacity.
I suppose that was too much to hope.
Not really, although with the intellectual ability you've shown thus
far you're in way over your head. However, if you've exhausted all
the books in the "Clifford the Big Red Dog" series and are looking for
something more challenging, you could try reading Douglas Adams. His
books don't have any pictures, and he often makes up his own words,
but you may be able to get the gist of his story if you keep a decent
dictionary by your side.
If you can handle fiction written by an atheist, you can try a short
essay or two. Bergen Evans has an extremely excellent piece called "A
Tale of a Tub", published in _A Natural History of Nonsense_; a
librarian can help you to find it. Try the other essays in there,
too.
Those are two big steps, so I won't suggest any further course of
reading till you've shown you can handle these authors.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
04 Aug 2004 05:42:27 PM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
Cardinal Vertigo <vertigo@alexandria.cc> wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
Cardinal Vertigo <vertigo@alexandria.cc> wrote:
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant, surely at some point in
recorded history someone had the same ideas as you, and scribbled
out a pamphlet or a book.
What firey pamphlet do you quote to explain why you live your life
as though there is no all-powerful alien puppetmaster from M31
directing your every move with a mind-control beam? Me, I don't
need someone to give me permission not to think there's such a
being, but
apparantly you guys do. So unless you're hypocrites, or you believe
in alien puppetmasters, you'll be able to produce these writings. On
the other hand, you may see the rank stupidity in demanding you
produce an authority for *every* thing you don't believe exists or
is true, in which case you get the point we're making.
Well, the thing is, no one on the ATHEIST TEAM seemed capable of
writing
anything genuinely worth reading. So I was sort of hoping one of them
might cite something I hadn't heard of that might actually be worth
the time it took to flip through.
This is a different thing altogether. First, there is no atheist
team, just as there is no "not believing in alien puppetmaster" team.
Second, there's a difference between something's being written by an
atheist, and something being a long philosophical tract on why there's
no alien puppetmaster, a term that's as applicable to the demiurge
most people worship as it is to the hypothetical being from Andromeda.
Given your response, you and the parvenue would both benefit from
reading Epictetus:
The beginning of philosophy is to know the condition of one's own
mind. If a man recognizes that this is in a weakly state, he will not
then want to apply it to questions of the greatest moment. As it is,
men who are not fit to swallow even a morsel buy whole treatises and
try to devour them. Accordingly they either vomit them up again, or
suffer from indigestion, whence come gripings, fluxions and fevers.
Whereas they should have stopped to consider their capacity.
I suppose that was too much to hope.
Not really, although with the intellectual ability you've shown thus
far you're in way over your head. However, if you've exhausted all
the books in the "Clifford the Big Red Dog" series and are looking for
something more challenging, you could try reading Douglas Adams. His
books don't have any pictures, and he often makes up his own words,
but you may be able to get the gist of his story if you keep a decent
dictionary by your side.
If you can handle fiction written by an atheist, you can try a short
essay or two. Bergen Evans has an extremely excellent piece called "A
Tale of a Tub", published in _A Natural History of Nonsense_; a
librarian can help you to find it. Try the other essays in there,
too.
Those are two big steps, so I won't suggest any further course of
reading till you've shown you can handle these authors.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Cosby http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 04:02:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:52:15 GMT, L. Raymond
<baddaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
First, there is no atheist
team, just as there is no "not believing in alien puppetmaster" team.
If you can handle fiction written by an atheist, you can try a short
essay or two. Bergen Evans has an extremely excellent piece called "A
Tale of a Tub", published in _A Natural History of Nonsense_; a
librarian can help you to find it. Try the other essays in there,
too.
Those are two big steps, so I won't suggest any further course of
reading till you've shown you can handle these authors.
But though there is no team, still, those on the team are
intellectually superior to those not on it, apparently.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
"Turn the pot upside down, the girl will still be like her mother"
- Syrian proverb
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Android Cat" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 02:36:28 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
Well, the thing is, no one on the ATHEIST TEAM seemed capable of
writing anything genuinely worth reading. So I was sort of hoping
one of them might cite something I hadn't heard of that might
actually be worth the time it took to flip through.
I suppose that was too much to hope.
Woah, there's an Atheist Team? Do we have t-shirts? I never got that memo.
(Not that I spend any of my day not believing in god--too much work. Does
that count?)
--
Ron of that ilk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 05:18:15 PM |
|
|
"Android Cat" <androidcat98@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:8HRPc.67013$jf.35413@nntp-post.primus.ca:
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
Well, the thing is, no one on the ATHEIST TEAM seemed capable of
writing anything genuinely worth reading. So I was sort of hoping
one of them might cite something I hadn't heard of that might
actually be worth the time it took to flip through.
I suppose that was too much to hope.
Woah, there's an Atheist Team? Do we have t-shirts? I never got that
memo.
See what happens when you miss the secret meetings! I'll bet you didn;t
even show up for your black helicopter flight training.
--
Enkidu aa 2165
Now playing: Bob Marley - Exodus
American Military Deaths in Iraq
http://antiwar.com/casualties/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 02:43:32 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
Cardinal Vertigo <vertigo@alexandria.cc> wrote:
[snip]
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant, surely at some point in
recorded history someone had the same ideas as you, and scribbled out a
pamphlet or a book.
What firey pamphlet do you quote to explain why you live your life
as though there is no all-powerful alien pupermaster from M31
directing your every move with a mind-control beam? Me, I don't need
someone to give me permission not to think there's such a being, but
apparantly you guys do. So unless you're hypocrites, or you believe
in alien puppetmasters, you'll be able to produce these writings. On
the other hand, you may see the rank stupidity in demanding you
produce an authority for *every* thing you don't believe exists or is
true, in which case you get the point we're making.
Well, the thing is, no one on the ATHEIST TEAM seemed capable of writing
anything genuinely worth reading. So I was sort of hoping one of them
might cite something I hadn't heard of that might actually be worth the
time it took to flip through.
I suppose that was too much to hope.
The word Atheist and the meaning of that word keep changing.
In the days of Rome, Christians were Atheists. Until the
age of enlightenment, it had no real meaning, it was a polemical
term, meaning more often than not, hetero-orthodox or heretical.
Only with the rise of the enlightenment and science did real
Atheists become notable and the word had to be redefined to mean,
those who do not believe in the existance of god.
And still it shifs in meaning with the diffrentiation between strong and
weak atheism. If you are looking for something realitic here, sorry, it
would be a long and complex undertaking to trace the history of all of this
and write it up.
Atheism as a word meaning those who do not believe in god
is actually fairly new, and loaded with complexity as the word evolved
and the concepts evolved over time in a rather hostile enviroment.
Only a few Atheists around have enough familiarity with all
of this to do the subject justice.
The word as we know it, not believing in god came about in the 1600's
as real atheists became known as a result of revulsion of the corruption
of the papacy, the religous wars of the 1500's the rise of philosophy,
printing and science spurred on some peoople to abandon ideas of gods, and
write about it.
In reaction, to fight this, theologians had to refine that word to
accurately label a foe they could not physically stamp out as in
the old days of simply burning people like this.
It is from this that the idea of an atheist as one who does not believe in
god became the working definition, as distinct from the polemical name
calling that had been all that atheist had meant before.
And that is all it meant. One who for whatever reason, had no belief
in god.
Why that was so and what to do about it was another question.
Isaac Newton saw science as a way of doing theology, Descarte
thought reforming philosphy was the way to battle Atheism,
since the old ways had failed and the educated class was taking
up Atheism. The old arguments did not work, as Kant pointed out.
New ways were needed for a new type of religous foe.
One would have to write a fairly thick book to get into the meat
of what Atheism was pre and post enlightenment and how it is
still evolving and why it evolved the way it did.
Its all intensely historical.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moore" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
07 Aug 2004 12:18:31 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
Well, the thing is, no one on the ATHEIST TEAM seemed capable of writing
anything genuinely worth reading. So I was sort of hoping one of them
might cite something I hadn't heard of that might actually be worth the
time it took to flip through.
I suppose that was too much to hope.
If you're looking for a modern reading list, see here:
http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/booklist.asp
--
M2
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nu-monet v7.0" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 12:24:23 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant,
surely at some point in recorded history
someone had the same ideas as you, and
scribbled out a pamphlet or a book.
I mean, personally, I've noticed that
often other people have had the same ideas
as I have. Often they were better writers
than me, too.
(summary of alt.atheism):
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in
rather a scornful tone, "it means just what
I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
-- from 'Through the Looking Glass'
--
Rev. nu-monet
Founder and High Priest
Church of Kali, U.S.A. (Reformed)
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 01:48:44 PM |
|
|
"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
(summary of alt.atheism):
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in
rather a scornful tone, "it means just what
I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
-- from 'Through the Looking Glass'
Quoting from your intellectual equals is a good start. Maybe you
can move up to a cauliflower next. At least that resembles a brain.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
04 Aug 2004 05:43:41 PM |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
(summary of alt.atheism):
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in
rather a scornful tone, "it means just what
I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
-- from 'Through the Looking Glass'
Quoting from your intellectual equals is a good start. Maybe you
can move up to a cauliflower next. At least that resembles a brain.
redoubled mirth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nu-monet v7.0" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
04 Aug 2004 05:54:11 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
L. Raymond wrote:
"nu-monet v7.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
(summary of alt.atheism):
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in
rather a scornful tone, "it means just what
I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
-- from 'Through the Looking Glass'
Quoting from your intellectual equals is a
good start. Maybe you can move up to a
cauliflower next. At least that resembles a
brain.
redoubled mirth.
You wouldn't be laughing if you knew we were
laughing at you.
-- Love, alt.slack
--
Rev. nu-monet
Founder and High Priest
Church of Kali, U.S.A. (Reformed)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............ |
03 Aug 2004 03:22:53 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:24:23 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
<nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
Come on. If you're so fucking brilliant,
surely at some point in recorded history
someone had the same ideas as you, and
scribbled out a pamphlet or a book.
I mean, personally, I've noticed that
often other people have had the same ideas
as I have. Often they were better writers
than me, too.
(summary of alt.atheism):
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in
rather a scornful tone, "it means just what
I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
-- from 'Through the Looking Glass'
You are still the one who claimed atheism is a philosophy. You are
still the one who mentioned Russell. You are still the one who has
failed to cite one, single example from Russell or anyone else of one,
positive belief required to be an atheist. You can't even come up
with one yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
It's OK if you don't believe in GOD but............
GODPOD NEWSBLAST: Justice for Christ in America - ***** Terrorist Man ..They'll tell you, blame the shadows in the New World Order, but don't rely on ev idence to form your conclusions on who PERSONALLY is responsible for criminal ac tions agains
Re: New GODPOD ! ! ! - Justice for Christ in America - ***** Terrorist Man - . . . : They'll tell you, blame the shadows in the New World Order, but don't rely on evidence to form your conclusions on who PERSONALLY is responsible for criminal acti
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down wi
You can teach, but don't preach
You only think you know Jesus but you really don't
PA TV: Expel Israelis from Israel; 'Be gone. Die anywhere you like, but don't die here.'
Re: What religious leaders DON'T tell you, but scripture does.
| You claim to be a Muslim, but you don't know the first thing about Islam. Don't talk about the Holy Book as if you're some kind of expert. Can you show me where in the Holy Quran it says you sit between two men and kiss them and carry on, as you did
Re: GOP Congress Targets MORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "People will feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don't know how you get a deficit down without people taking some medicine."
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
MY DEMANDS - The King of America - Live broadcasts out in the fields, trumping evil demons by the power of the Word . . . : They'll tell you, blame the shadows in the New World Order, but don't rely on evidence to form your conclusions on who PERSONA
The King of America - Citizens Face Full Asset Seizure - like holy fuk mon let's get real here People . . . : They'll tell you, blame the shadows in the New World Order, but don't rely on evidence to form your conclusions on who PERSONALLY is respons
Re: PROOF THAT LIBERALS HATE AMERICA ==> GOP Congress TargetsMORE Program Cuts for Poor & Middle Class; Cut Taxes for Rich - "Peoplewill feel some real pain," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., "but I don'tknow how you get a deficit down witho
$1,000,000 prize if you prove your the president of USA but you don't have delusions of grandeur
|
|
|
