| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Enkidu" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2003 04:38:10 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
shawn wrote:
What is the difference between Theophobia and Atheism?
Theophobics are afraid of the that which is not, and atheists are not afraid
of that which is not. Same as the difference between theists and atheists,
really.
--
Enkidu
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.
René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637.
.
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
30 Dec 2003 12:35:53 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<m12Ib.42391$m83.24470@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
What is the difference between Theophobia and Atheism?
Theophobics are afraid of the that which is not, and atheists are not afraid
of that which is not. Same as the difference between theists and atheists,
really.
Sounds reasonable, except that it would be helpful to me
if you could clarify the "that which is not" part for
atheists. You imply that "that which is not" is
necessarily not a product of Theophobia.
If not Theophobia, then what?
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
30 Dec 2003 02:46:23 PM |
|
|
shawn wrote:
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:<m12Ib.42391$m83.24470@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
What is the difference between Theophobia and Atheism?
Theophobics are afraid of the that which is not, and atheists are
not afraid of that which is not. Same as the difference between
theists and atheists, really.
Sounds reasonable, except that it would be helpful to me
if you could clarify the "that which is not" part for
atheists. You imply that "that which is not" is
necessarily not a product of Theophobia.
If not Theophobia, then what?
I'd never heard of "theophobia" before reading the original post. I expect
the poster was heading toward "Atheists fear God, so they deny him. They
are really theophobes, not atheists." I headed him off at the pass.
A theophobe would be a theist, afraid of a god. (Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
In either case, there is no god. So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist. The atheist is not afraid of something that does not
exist.
--
Enkidu
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.
René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
31 Dec 2003 09:08:42 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<iJlIb.42739$m83.3228@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:<m12Ib.42391$m83.24470@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
What is the difference between Theophobia and Atheism?
Theophobics are afraid of the that which is not, and atheists are
not afraid of that which is not. Same as the difference between
theists and atheists, really.
Sounds reasonable, except that it would be helpful to me
if you could clarify the "that which is not" part for
atheists. You imply that "that which is not" is
necessarily not a product of Theophobia.
If not Theophobia, then what?
I'd never heard of "theophobia" before reading the original post. I expect
the poster was heading toward "Atheists fear God, so they deny him. They
are really theophobes, not atheists." I headed him off at the pass.
Except that you did not answer my question. We can skip past it,
if you'd like, but I am genuinely interested in your response.
A theophobe would be a theist, afraid of a god.
OK, that's an interesting start, though I think your definition
could be made more useful by broadening it a bit. Homophobes
are not typipically afraid of homosexuals--homophobes hate
homosexuals. A stronger emotional context, but more useful,
since it more accurately reflects behaviors that drive
emotion-base attacks on homosexuals. And indeed, "hate" is
included in my dictionary's definition of Homophobia.
I think "hate" is appropriate here as well. Fear alone would
not justify the kinds of attacks on Theism that I have seen
from some Atheists. Would you accept that extension to your
definition?
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
But broaden your definition a bit per above, & we're good to go.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 11:30:24 PM |
|
|
On 31 Dec 2003 07:08:42 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
OK, that's an interesting start, though I think your definition
could be made more useful by broadening it a bit. Homophobes
are not typipically afraid of homosexuals--homophobes hate
homosexuals.
Most homophobes fear homosexuality, not homosexuals.
pho?bi?a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fb-)
n.
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or
situation.
Nothing about hatred.
I think "hate" is appropriate here as well. Fear alone would
not justify the kinds of attacks on Theism that I have seen
from some Atheists.
One can't hate what one doesn't believe exists. Do you hate Santa
Claus?
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
That it exists - and it does. But, in order to attack a god we'd have
to believe that it exists, and we don't.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
But broaden your definition a bit per above, & we're good to go.
We can't hate what we don't believe exists.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion.
There's never been any objective evidence of the objective existence
of any god. Have any?
Theophobia or something else?
Can't fear what you don't believe exists. Can't hate it either.
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
Since there's nothing TO understand, you're correct. Your god, to us,
is the same thing other gods are to you - just something others
believe in.
The North American Rationalist Society
Nothing rational about believing in gods.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 11:56:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:30:24 -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
I think "hate" is appropriate here as well. Fear alone would
not justify the kinds of attacks on Theism that I have seen
from some Atheists.
One can't hate what one doesn't believe exists. Do you hate Santa
Claus?
These liars don't understand the difference between an initial action
and the reaction to it. Nobody attacks theism - they react to theists
who can't live and let live. Nobody would care about Christians or
Chriostianity if they weren't so in-our-face. Christianity commands
its followers to try and make everybody else Christian. To tell us
about it whether we're interested or not. And primes them with lies
about those who aren't interested, that they nastily repeat to us.
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
That it exists - and it does. But, in order to attack a god we'd have
to believe that it exists, and we don't.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
But broaden your definition a bit per above, & we're good to go.
We can't hate what we don't believe exists.
That's not rocket science. In fact it's remarkably obvious. Having to
point this out demonmstrates just how stupid their religion has made
those Christians are who accuse us of hating it.
It's one of the lies it has primed them with. And they haven't the
sense not to repeat it to us - they don't realise just how nasty it
is.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion.
There's never been any objective evidence of the objective existence
of any god. Have any?
Obviously not. Otherwise he'd have given it.
But instead they accuse us of "believing there's no evidence",
"ignoring the evidence" etc. Further lies about us that they have been
primed with.
Theophobia or something else?
Can't fear what you don't believe exists. Can't hate it either.
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
Since there's nothing TO understand, you're correct. Your god, to us,
is the same thing other gods are to you - just something others
believe in.
The North American Rationalist Society
Nothing rational about believing in gods.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
31 Dec 2003 11:43:26 AM |
|
|
On 31 Dec 2003 07:08:42 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<iJlIb.42739$m83.3228@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:<m12Ib.42391$m83.24470@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
What is the difference between Theophobia and Atheism?
Theophobics are afraid of the that which is not, and atheists are
not afraid of that which is not. Same as the difference between
theists and atheists, really.
Sounds reasonable, except that it would be helpful to me
if you could clarify the "that which is not" part for
atheists. You imply that "that which is not" is
necessarily not a product of Theophobia.
If not Theophobia, then what?
I'd never heard of "theophobia" before reading the original post. I expect
the poster was heading toward "Atheists fear God, so they deny him. They
are really theophobes, not atheists." I headed him off at the pass.
Except that you did not answer my question. We can skip past it,
if you'd like, but I am genuinely interested in your response.
A theophobe would be a theist, afraid of a god.
OK, that's an interesting start, though I think your definition
could be made more useful by broadening it a bit. Homophobes
are not typipically afraid of homosexuals--homophobes hate
homosexuals.
Problem here is you don`t understand that hate is driven by fear.
You don`t love what you fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, nor do I
hate or love them. I pity them because of the persecutions they
suffer, because of christian fear and hatred of them.
I believe that hate is to strong of a word for a dislike of
christians that I feel, because of my concerns that they may prevail
in their intolerance which is a source of dread.
Dread is a more accurate word than fear.
A good god fearing christian, suffers a dread of offending a
wrathful god. Hoping to avoid wrath by claiming love is common among
the abused.
A stronger emotional context, but more useful,
since it more accurately reflects behaviors that drive
emotion-base attacks on homosexuals. And indeed, "hate" is
included in my dictionary's definition of Homophobia.
I think "hate" is appropriate here as well. Fear alone would
not justify the kinds of attacks on Theism that I have seen
from some Atheists. Would you accept that extension to your
definition?
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
That christian zeal is very dangerous to non believers, is a basis
for fear, fear leads to hate. Becoming a self righteous bigot is not
an acceptable defense.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
Very true since no god is believed to exist. However believers in
god do exist and are a threat, a threat can lead to fear and fear to
hate.
But broaden your definition a bit per above, & we're good to go.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
There is no god, is shorthand for "having seen no evidence of any
god existing, I have no beliefs in any god. And there fore am not "god
fearing". I am very wary of believers in god, because I have seen the
resulting hatred that god believers are capable of.
So I don`t fear christian,I detest and am very wary of them. I don`t
fear them enough to hate them. But have no love for them.
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
No some thing he believe is real, and a threat to him and those he
loves.
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 08:10:28 AM |
|
|
(robpar) wrote in message news:<3ff70510.46846652@news.airmail.net>...
....
A theophobe would be a theist, afraid of a god.
OK, that's an interesting start, though I think your definition
could be made more useful by broadening it a bit. Homophobes
are not typipically afraid of homosexuals--homophobes hate
homosexuals.
Problem here is you don`t understand that hate is driven by fear.
You don`t love what you fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, nor do I
hate or love them. I pity them because of the persecutions they
suffer, because of christian fear and hatred of them.
Then I, for one, would not consider you to be a homophobe.
I believe that hate is to strong of a word for a dislike of
christians that I feel, because of my concerns that they may prevail
in their intolerance which is a source of dread.
OK, fair enough. But what exactly is it that you dread? Some
Christians claim to have a mandate from God, and claim to be
driven to act on His behalf. Sounds pretty good, right?
If you assert that such claimed mandates are categorically
false, what is the basis for that claim?
Dread is a more accurate word than fear.
A good god fearing christian, suffers a dread of offending a
wrathful god. Hoping to avoid wrath by claiming love is common among
the abused.
This looks like a proposed useful behavioral model. Just to give
to a bit of an advance warning, I personally would not consider
this in any way to constitute a synthetic proof for the above
categorical assertion.
A stronger emotional context, but more useful,
since it more accurately reflects behaviors that drive
emotion-base attacks on homosexuals. And indeed, "hate" is
included in my dictionary's definition of Homophobia.
I think "hate" is appropriate here as well. Fear alone would
not justify the kinds of attacks on Theism that I have seen
from some Atheists. Would you accept that extension to your
definition?
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
That christian zeal is very dangerous to non believers, is a basis
for fear, fear leads to hate. Becoming a self righteous bigot is not
an acceptable defense.
"dangerous"? Can this be inverted to apply to Atheists?
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
Very true since no god is believed to exist.
By you? What is the basis for your "no god is believed to exist"?
However believers in
god do exist and are a threat, a threat can lead to fear and fear to
hate.
Well said!
But broaden your definition a bit per above, & we're good to go.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
There is no god, is shorthand for "having seen no evidence of any
god existing, I have no beliefs in any god. And there fore am not "god
fearing".
I very strongly disagree with this. To stretch "having seen no evidence
of any god existing" into "There is no god" is intellectual hubris at
its peak.
I am very wary of believers in god, because I have seen the
resulting hatred that god believers are capable of.
OK, but I'd say the same about Atheists.
So I don`t fear christian,I detest and am very wary of them. I don`t
fear them enough to hate them. But have no love for them.
But I don't categorically "detest" Atheists or Christians.
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
No some thing he believe is real, and a threat to him and those he
loves.
OK, I can accept that this is the case for you. But back to your
Atheism--what is your basis for your implied constraints on
Theism and Theists (e.g., "no god is believed to exist")?
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
02 Jan 2004 12:05:43 AM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
OK, fair enough. But what exactly is it that you dread? Some
Christians claim to have a mandate from God, and claim to be
driven to act on His behalf. Sounds pretty good, right?
Considering the god they claim to have a mandate from, pretty
horrible. Remember, this is the god that orders murder and rape,
kills entire planets, orders rape victims to spend the rest of their
lives married to their rapists ...
If you assert that such claimed mandates are categorically
false, what is the basis for that claim?
Stop shifting the burden. Those who claim that they're true carry the
burden of proving them true. No has the burden of disproving someone
else's assertion.
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
That christian zeal is very dangerous to non believers, is a basis
for fear, fear leads to hate. Becoming a self righteous bigot is not
an acceptable defense.
"dangerous"? Can this be inverted to apply to Atheists?
Lack of belief ion a god being dangerous? You'd have to present
evidence.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
Very true since no god is believed to exist.
By you?
By atheists.
What is the basis for your "no god is believed to exist"?
The definition of the word "atheist" - one who doesn't believe in any
gods.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
There is no god, is shorthand for "having seen no evidence of any
god existing, I have no beliefs in any god. And there fore am not "god
fearing".
I very strongly disagree with this. To stretch "having seen no evidence
of any god existing" into "There is no god" is intellectual hubris at
its peak.
That no one has ever presented any objective evidence of the objective
existence any god in the thousands of years, that we know of, of
trying is pretty good evidence that there is none.
I am very wary of believers in god, because I have seen the
resulting hatred that god believers are capable of.
OK, but I'd say the same about Atheists.
Lack of belief isn't a motivator - belief in a bloodthirsty god sure
is, though.
So I don`t fear christian,I detest and am very wary of them. I don`t
fear them enough to hate them. But have no love for them.
But I don't categorically "detest" Atheists or Christians.
We don't categorically detest Christians either. Atheism, qua
atheism, is lack of belief in any gods - nothing more.
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
No some thing he believe is real, and a threat to him and those he
loves.
OK, I can accept that this is the case for you. But back to your
Atheism--what is your basis for your implied constraints on
Theism and Theists (e.g., "no god is believed to exist")?
Asked and answered more than once.
--
"religion did for *****, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
02 Jan 2004 07:12:38 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<ui1avvg3rsi517jgc09t1rmfc3albt2mum@Pern.rk>...
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
OK, fair enough. But what exactly is it that you dread? Some
Christians claim to have a mandate from God, and claim to be
driven to act on His behalf. Sounds pretty good, right?
Considering the god they claim to have a mandate from, pretty
horrible. Remember, this is the god that orders murder and rape,
kills entire planets, orders rape victims to spend the rest of their
lives married to their rapists ...
If you assert that such claimed mandates are categorically
false, what is the basis for that claim?
Stop shifting the burden. Those who claim that they're true carry the
burden of proving them true. No has the burden of disproving someone
else's assertion.
Fair enough. Exception: If *you* assert that a particular assertion is
necessarily false, you obligate yourself to defend your assertion.
"Burden" and "obligate" are interesting words in this context.
They do not address moral or ethical requirements; they address
utility. Assertions made without justification are meaningless
and empty, and thus, unuseful--not necessarily unethical.
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
That christian zeal is very dangerous to non believers, is a basis
for fear, fear leads to hate. Becoming a self righteous bigot is not
an acceptable defense.
"dangerous"? Can this be inverted to apply to Atheists?
Lack of belief ion a god being dangerous? You'd have to present
evidence.
no, no. Attacking gods via denial of existence without justification
is an action with unknown consequences, and thus, may be dangerous.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
Very true since no god is believed to exist.
By you?
By atheists.
What is the basis for your "no god is believed to exist"?
The definition of the word "atheist" - one who doesn't believe in any
gods.
I don't understand the word "believe" in this context. What
necessary attributes can be ascribed to someone who "believes
in gods"? Can I simply negate them to define Atheism?
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
There is no god, is shorthand for "having seen no evidence of any
god existing, I have no beliefs in any god. And there fore am not "god
fearing".
I very strongly disagree with this. To stretch "having seen no evidence
of any god existing" into "There is no god" is intellectual hubris at
its peak.
That no one has ever presented any objective evidence of the objective
existence any god in the thousands of years, that we know of, of
trying is pretty good evidence that there is none.
No, the lack of evidence has no necessary logical relationship to categorical
denial of existence.
I am very wary of believers in god, because I have seen the
resulting hatred that god believers are capable of.
OK, but I'd say the same about Atheists.
Lack of belief isn't a motivator - belief in a bloodthirsty god sure
is, though.
So I don`t fear christian,I detest and am very wary of them. I don`t
fear them enough to hate them. But have no love for them.
But I don't categorically "detest" Atheists or Christians.
We don't categorically detest Christians either. Atheism, qua
atheism, is lack of belief in any gods - nothing more.
Again, I do not understand "belief" in this context. Some
Atheists in this group assert that "there are no gods". Is that
what you mean?
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
No some thing he believe is real, and a threat to him and those he
loves.
OK, I can accept that this is the case for you. But back to your
Atheism--what is your basis for your implied constraints on
Theism and Theists (e.g., "no god is believed to exist")?
Asked and answered more than once.
Progress is slow, but I think we're converging.
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
02 Jan 2004 04:13:34 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2004 05:12:38 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<ui1avvg3rsi517jgc09t1rmfc3albt2mum@Pern.rk>...
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
OK, fair enough. But what exactly is it that you dread? Some
Christians claim to have a mandate from God, and claim to be
driven to act on His behalf. Sounds pretty good, right?
Considering the god they claim to have a mandate from, pretty
horrible. Remember, this is the god that orders murder and rape,
kills entire planets, orders rape victims to spend the rest of their
lives married to their rapists ...
If you assert that such claimed mandates are categorically
false, what is the basis for that claim?
Stop shifting the burden. Those who claim that they're true carry the
burden of proving them true. No has the burden of disproving someone
else's assertion.
Fair enough. Exception: If *you* assert that a particular assertion is
necessarily false, you obligate yourself to defend your assertion.
Unlimited existentially positive assertions carry the burden of proof.
Unlimited existentially negative assertions don't.
"Burden" and "obligate" are interesting words in this context.
They do not address moral or ethical requirements; they address
utility.
They address rules of logic as applied to usenet, nothing more.
Assertions made without justification are meaningless
and empty, and thus, unuseful--not necessarily unethical.
But this has nothing to do with the way logic is applied to assertions
made on usenet.
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
That christian zeal is very dangerous to non believers, is a basis
for fear, fear leads to hate. Becoming a self righteous bigot is not
an acceptable defense.
"dangerous"? Can this be inverted to apply to Atheists?
Lack of belief ion a god being dangerous? You'd have to present
evidence.
no, no. Attacking gods via denial of existence without justification
Is not atheism.
is an action with unknown consequences, and thus, may be dangerous.
It may be, but the question was whether atheism (lack of belief in any
god) may be.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
Very true since no god is believed to exist.
By you?
By atheists.
What is the basis for your "no god is believed to exist"?
The definition of the word "atheist" - one who doesn't believe in any
gods.
I don't understand the word "believe" in this context. What
necessary attributes can be ascribed to someone who "believes
in gods"? Can I simply negate them to define Atheism?
There are no attributes other than belief in one or more gods.
Negating that - lack of belief in any god - defines an atheist.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
There is no god, is shorthand for "having seen no evidence of any
god existing, I have no beliefs in any god. And there fore am not "god
fearing".
I very strongly disagree with this. To stretch "having seen no evidence
of any god existing" into "There is no god" is intellectual hubris at
its peak.
That no one has ever presented any objective evidence of the objective
existence any god in the thousands of years, that we know of, of
trying is pretty good evidence that there is none.
No, the lack of evidence has no necessary logical relationship to categorical
denial of existence.
I didn't offer it as proof, but as pretty good evidence. If billions
of people search for something for hundreds of thousands of years, and
it's not found, that's pretty good evidence, but not proof, that the
thing being searched for isn't there.
So I don`t fear christian,I detest and am very wary of them. I don`t
fear them enough to hate them. But have no love for them.
But I don't categorically "detest" Atheists or Christians.
We don't categorically detest Christians either. Atheism, qua
atheism, is lack of belief in any gods - nothing more.
Again, I do not understand "belief" in this context.
It means the same thing it means in other contexts.
Some Atheists in this group assert that "there are no gods".
And some live in Texas. Which has as much to do with atheism as has
the gnosticism you state - that there are no gods.
Is that what you mean?
No, I mean that all atheists have only one thing in common - lack of
belief in any god.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
03 Jan 2004 07:01:10 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<rqqbvvknjl7ghvc3nmo4ikk1oo9dt9id3s@Pern.rk>...
On 2 Jan 2004 05:12:38 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<ui1avvg3rsi517jgc09t1rmfc3albt2mum@Pern.rk>...
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
OK, fair enough. But what exactly is it that you dread? Some
Christians claim to have a mandate from God, and claim to be
driven to act on His behalf. Sounds pretty good, right?
Considering the god they claim to have a mandate from, pretty
horrible. Remember, this is the god that orders murder and rape,
kills entire planets, orders rape victims to spend the rest of their
lives married to their rapists ...
If you assert that such claimed mandates are categorically
false, what is the basis for that claim?
Stop shifting the burden. Those who claim that they're true carry the
burden of proving them true. No has the burden of disproving someone
else's assertion.
Fair enough. Exception: If *you* assert that a particular assertion is
necessarily false, you obligate yourself to defend your assertion.
Unlimited existentially positive assertions carry the burden of proof.
Unlimited existentially negative assertions don't.
Where does this come from? I deduce from your assertions here that
you do not have a mathematical background. Considerable effort has
been expended by mathematicians to create proofs for "Unlimited
existentially negative assertions", and to my knowledge, have been
generally unsuccessful. One exception, which follows from Galois
field theory, is that no closed form solutions to 5th or higher-order
polynomials exist.
There is a difference between "useful" and "proven". The statement
above regarding polynomials is demonstrably useful and proven. Any
utility
that can be ascribed to "there are no gods" cannot follow from the
truth of the statement until it is known to be true. Collecting
a bunch of consistent evidence does not constitute a proof.
[...]
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
04 Jan 2004 09:16:04 AM |
|
|
On 3 Jan 2004 05:01:10 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<rqqbvvknjl7ghvc3nmo4ikk1oo9dt9id3s@Pern.rk>...
On 2 Jan 2004 05:12:38 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<ui1avvg3rsi517jgc09t1rmfc3albt2mum@Pern.rk>...
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
OK, fair enough. But what exactly is it that you dread? Some
Christians claim to have a mandate from God, and claim to be
driven to act on His behalf. Sounds pretty good, right?
Considering the god they claim to have a mandate from, pretty
horrible. Remember, this is the god that orders murder and rape,
kills entire planets, orders rape victims to spend the rest of their
lives married to their rapists ...
If you assert that such claimed mandates are categorically
false, what is the basis for that claim?
Stop shifting the burden. Those who claim that they're true carry the
burden of proving them true. No has the burden of disproving someone
else's assertion.
Fair enough. Exception: If *you* assert that a particular assertion is
necessarily false, you obligate yourself to defend your assertion.
Unlimited existentially positive assertions carry the burden of proof.
Unlimited existentially negative assertions don't.
Where does this come from? I deduce from your assertions here that
you do not have a mathematical background. Considerable effort has
been expended by mathematicians to create proofs for "Unlimited
existentially negative assertions", and to my knowledge, have been
generally unsuccessful. One exception, which follows from Galois
field theory, is that no closed form solutions to 5th or higher-order
polynomials exist.
There is a difference between "useful" and "proven". The statement
above regarding polynomials is demonstrably useful and proven. Any
utility
that can be ascribed to "there are no gods" cannot follow from the
truth of the statement until it is known to be true. Collecting
a bunch of consistent evidence does not constitute a proof.
I don't know how to prove there's not a Santa Claus, either, but
considering the complete lack of evidence, I see no reason to waste my
time trying.
Present your mathematical proof of god(s) to a peer-reviewed
mathematical journal.
- Sev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
04 Jan 2004 03:35:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 15:16:04 GMT, Severian
<severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> posted to alt.atheism:
I don't know how to prove there's not a Santa Claus, either, but
considering the complete lack of evidence, I see no reason to waste my
time trying.
Present your mathematical proof of god(s) to a peer-reviewed
mathematical journal.
Or even to usenet.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 01:01:38 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
I very strongly disagree with this. To stretch "having seen no evidence
of any god existing" into "There is no god" is intellectual hubris at
its peak.
If I prefaced each of these then would you understand the very
simple concept , that the existence or non existence is a matter of
belief.
So does I don`t believe there is any god get the concept across to
your feeble mind.
I am very wary of believers in god, because I have seen the
resulting hatred that god believers are capable of.
OK, but I'd say the same about Atheists.
Then I would invite you to offer historical evidence of atheist
killing in the name of atheism.
So I don`t fear christian,I detest and am very wary of them. I don`t
fear them enough to hate them. But have no love for them.
But I don't categorically "detest" Atheists or Christians.
Well you come across as a burner of atheist heretics type.
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
No some thing he believe is real, and a threat to him and those he
loves.
OK, I can accept that this is the case for you. But back to your
Atheism--what is your basis for your implied constraints on
Theism and Theists (e.g., "no god is believed to exist")?
Shawn
The attempts of theist principally christians to force their values
on others. As soon as you reenslave women and get rid of gays, then
you will turn to atheist to rid the earth of.
Stupid bastards should have targeted atheist first.
The North American IRRationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
02 Jan 2004 06:58:41 AM |
|
|
(robpar) wrote in message news:<40056c04.15260288@news.airmail.net>...
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
I very strongly disagree with this. To stretch "having seen no evidence
of any god existing" into "There is no god" is intellectual hubris at
its peak.
If I prefaced each of these then would you understand the very
simple concept , that the existence or non existence is a matter of
belief.
Then don't emphatically assert that "there are no gods"!
Be intellectually honest!!
So does I don`t believe there is any god get the concept across to
your feeble mind.
I am very wary of believers in god, because I have seen the
resulting hatred that god believers are capable of.
OK, but I'd say the same about Atheists.
Then I would invite you to offer historical evidence of atheist
killing in the name of atheism.
So I don`t fear christian,I detest and am very wary of them. I don`t
fear them enough to hate them. But have no love for them.
But I don't categorically "detest" Atheists or Christians.
Well you come across as a burner of atheist heretics type.
Why? Because I press Atheists in this group to defend their assertions?
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
No some thing he believe is real, and a threat to him and those he
loves.
OK, I can accept that this is the case for you. But back to your
Atheism--what is your basis for your implied constraints on
Theism and Theists (e.g., "no god is believed to exist")?
Shawn
The attempts of theist principally christians to force their values
on others. As soon as you reenslave women and get rid of gays, then
you will turn to atheist to rid the earth of.
Stupid bastards should have targeted atheist first.
This looks like hate to me. Does that make me a "burner of atheist heretics"?
The North American IRRationalist Society
It is bad form, even in jest, to modify the posted words of others.
Is doing that really consistent with your ethical framework?
Does my offense at your action make me a "burner of atheist heretics"?
www.na-rs.org
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
02 Jan 2004 07:42:49 AM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2004 04:58:41 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
robpar@deleteairmail.net (robpar) wrote in message news:<40056c04.15260288@news.airmail.net>...
On 1 Jan 2004 06:10:28 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
I very strongly disagree with this. To stretch "having seen no evidence
of any god existing" into "There is no god" is intellectual hubris at
its peak.
If I prefaced each of these then would you understand the very
simple concept , that the existence or non existence is a matter of
belief.
Then don't emphatically assert that "there are no gods"!
Be intellectually honest!!
And YOU don't say there's no Santa Claus, because there's no
difference.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 12:36:47 AM |
|
|
robpar wrote:
On 31 Dec 2003 07:08:42 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
Problem here is you don`t understand that hate is driven by fear.
You don`t love what you fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, nor do I
hate or love them. I pity them because of the persecutions they
suffer, because of christian fear and hatred of them.
I see, you are a troll.
Or the most ignorant and self important ***** on the net, and there is a
lot of competition for that title.
Nobody here hates god for the same reason we don't hate Captain Hook,
or Sideshow Bob.
Its silly to hate non-existant characters who are also silly.
Even if as characters, they are rather unpleasant.
All the gods of humanity are likewise, silly non-existant phantoms.
Of no more importance to Atheists than Saturday morning kids' TV cartoon
villians.
And the god of the OT most certainly resembles a TV cartoon
villian more than anything else.
Savage, stupid, goofy and not very rational. Not much of a god.
The billy goat herder priests that made this god up weren't very imginative.
Hating the effects of stupid humans who will not think, use logic, or be
rational is simply unavoidable. Especially when it becomes a chronic habit.
People who insist Atheists must think about god like religous fools think
about non-existant Satan, and can't be educated out of that bizarre and
wrong notion simple are the sort of morons that cause people to dislike
your stubborn incapability of thinking rationally without becoming
emotionally attached to a stupid error.
We do rather hate militant irrationality and inability to intellectually
handle any thought above a simple third grader level.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 12:03:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:36:47 -0600, William Barwell sat down at his
computer and showed that he had not a clue.
<wbarwell@mungged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
robpar wrote:
On 31 Dec 2003 07:08:42 -0800, (shawn) wrote:
deleted.
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
deleted.
Problem here is you don`t understand that hate is driven by fear.
You don`t love what you fear. I have no fear of homosexuals, nor do I
hate or love them. I pity them because of the persecutions they
suffer, because of christian fear and hatred of them.
Apparently the message referred too.
I see, you are a troll.
Or the most ignorant and self important ***** on the net, and there is a
lot of competition for that title.
Speaking of yourself?
Nobody here hates god for the same reason we don't hate Captain Hook,
or Sideshow Bob.
And who claimed any hate for god?
Its silly to hate non-existant characters who are also silly.
Even if as characters, they are rather unpleasant.
All the gods of humanity are likewise, silly non-existant phantoms.
Of no more importance to Atheists than Saturday morning kids' TV cartoon
villians.
And the god of the OT most certainly resembles a TV cartoon
villian more than anything else.
Savage, stupid, goofy and not very rational. Not much of a god.
The billy goat herder priests that made this god up weren't very imginative.
Who claimed any hatred for God?
Hating the effects of stupid humans who will not think, use logic, or be
rational is simply unavoidable. Especially when it becomes a chronic habit.
People who insist Atheists must think about god like religous fools think
about non-existant Satan, and can't be educated out of that bizarre and
wrong notion simple are the sort of morons that cause people to dislike
your stubborn incapability of thinking rationally without becoming
emotionally attached to a stupid error.
We do rather hate militant irrationality and inability to intellectually
handle any thought above a simple third grader level.
Cheerful Charlie
Don`t sound very cheerful to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 05:58:09 PM |
|
|
robpar wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:36:47 -0600, William Barwell sat down at his
computer and showed that he had not a clue.
<wbarwell@mungged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
I see, you are a troll.
Or the most ignorant and self important ***** on the net, and there is
a lot of competition for that title.
Speaking of yourself?
Nobody here hates god for the same reason we don't hate Captain Hook,
or Sideshow Bob.
And who claimed any hate for god?
You did. You trolled.
The few who bothered with this thread know you did and now
know you are a troll.
And now, a lying troll at that.
I am no troll as long time alt.atheist readerrs know.
I can post hard nosed substance.
Unlike you who can only troll, and when called on it,
lie about yoiur trolling posts.
Now, what did your trolling win you?
Bad reputation and exposure as somebody
without substance, that's what.
Wear your tin foil troll hat proudly.
"look at me! I can aim for troll and no higher!"
A loser's game, but hey, losers do what they have to,
in your case, troll.
Its silly to hate non-existant characters who are also silly.
Even if as characters, they are rather unpleasant.
All the gods of humanity are likewise, silly non-existant phantoms.
Of no more importance to Atheists than Saturday morning kids' TV cartoon
villians.
And the god of the OT most certainly resembles a TV cartoon
villian more than anything else.
Savage, stupid, goofy and not very rational. Not much of a god.
The billy goat herder priests that made this god up weren't very
imginative.
Who claimed any hatred for God?
Hating the effects of stupid humans who will not think, use logic, or be
rational is simply unavoidable. Especially when it becomes a chronic
habit. People who insist Atheists must think about god like religous fools
think about non-existant Satan, and can't be educated out of that bizarre
and wrong notion simple are the sort of morons that cause people to
dislike your stubborn incapability of thinking rationally without becoming
emotionally attached to a stupid error.
We do rather hate militant irrationality and inability to intellectually
handle any thought above a simple third grader level.
Cheerful Charlie
Don`t sound very cheerful to me.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
31 Dec 2003 10:04:40 AM |
|
|
shawn wrote:
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:<iJlIb.42739$m83.3228@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:<m12Ib.42391$m83.24470@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
What is the difference between Theophobia and Atheism?
Theophobics are afraid of the that which is not, and atheists are
not afraid of that which is not. Same as the difference between
theists and atheists, really.
Sounds reasonable, except that it would be helpful to me
if you could clarify the "that which is not" part for
atheists. You imply that "that which is not" is
necessarily not a product of Theophobia.
If not Theophobia, then what?
I'd never heard of "theophobia" before reading the original post. I
expect the poster was heading toward "Atheists fear God, so they
deny him. They are really theophobes, not atheists." I headed him
off at the pass.
Except that you did not answer my question. We can skip past it,
if you'd like, but I am genuinely interested in your response.
A theophobe would be a theist, afraid of a god.
OK, that's an interesting start, though I think your definition
could be made more useful by broadening it a bit. Homophobes
are not typipically afraid of homosexuals--homophobes hate
homosexuals. A stronger emotional context, but more useful,
since it more accurately reflects behaviors that drive
emotion-base attacks on homosexuals. And indeed, "hate" is
included in my dictionary's definition of Homophobia.
I think "hate" is appropriate here as well. Fear alone would
not justify the kinds of attacks on Theism that I have seen
from some Atheists. Would you accept that extension to your
definition?
No. It's not my word. I didn't post it, I was just guessing at it's
meaning. As for atheists attacking religion, what do you base that claim
on? Our reaction in an atheist newsgroup to Christians trying to convert
us? This is our spot on the internet, and they've come hunting for us. If
I walked into a church, elbowed the preacher out of the way, and started
refuting their doctrines, how do you think I would be received?
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
Can't you read? You'd have to believe a god was real in order to be afraid
of that god.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
But broaden your definition a bit per above, & we're good to go.
I think not.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
Logic, science, the unsuccessful search for evidence that a god is.
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
Could be. But I think not. Anyway, it's not my word, it's not in common
usage, there is no reason to suspect atheists hate religion as hohophobes
hate homosexuals, and I only guessed at its definition. Find another
strawman. Find another debating partner.
--
Enkidu
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.
René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637.
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 07:44:23 AM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<qsCIb.43034$m83.31645@fed1read01>...
shawn wrote:
What is the difference between Theophobia and Atheism?
Theophobics are afraid of the that which is not, and atheists are
not afraid of that which is not. Same as the difference between
theists and atheists, really.
Sounds reasonable, except that it would be helpful to me
if you could clarify the "that which is not" part for
atheists. You imply that "that which is not" is
necessarily not a product of Theophobia.
If not Theophobia, then what?
I'd never heard of "theophobia" before reading the original post. I
expect the poster was heading toward "Atheists fear God, so they
deny him. They are really theophobes, not atheists." I headed him
off at the pass.
Except that you did not answer my question. We can skip past it,
if you'd like, but I am genuinely interested in your response.
A theophobe would be a theist, afraid of a god.
OK, that's an interesting start, though I think your definition
could be made more useful by broadening it a bit. Homophobes
are not typipically afraid of homosexuals--homophobes hate
homosexuals. A stronger emotional context, but more useful,
since it more accurately reflects behaviors that drive
emotion-base attacks on homosexuals. And indeed, "hate" is
included in my dictionary's definition of Homophobia.
I think "hate" is appropriate here as well. Fear alone would
not justify the kinds of attacks on Theism that I have seen
from some Atheists. Would you accept that extension to your
definition?
No. It's not my word. I didn't post it, I was just guessing at it's
meaning.
OK, fair enough.
As for atheists attacking religion, what do you base that claim
on?
Well, I'm not a young guy. Been a lot of places, read a lot, and
met a lot of people.
Our reaction in an atheist newsgroup to Christians trying to convert
us? This is our spot on the internet, and they've come hunting for us.
This is strange. Do you really think my life experience with Atheists
is limited to this newsgroup?
If
I walked into a church, elbowed the preacher out of the way, and started
refuting their doctrines, how do you think I would be received?
They would probably hate you, too.
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
Can't you read? You'd have to believe a god was real in order to be afraid
of that god.
OK, got it. But I think your statement, as stated is narrow to the
point of being unuseful.
An atheist is not afraid of a god.
But broaden your definition a bit per above, & we're good to go.
I think not.
OK.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
Logic, science, the unsuccessful search for evidence that a god is.
Please show me the logic.
I don't see how science is relevant. Science is useful in building
behavioral models. It is limited by the wielder's perceptions
and reasoning abilities. Indeed, as far as I know, no one has ever
presented a portable, synthetic proof of anything. Your definitive
"there is no god" implies an underlying synthetic proof.
Can you post the proof?
So the theophobe is afraid of something
that does not exist.
Or maybe he hates something that he cannot understand.
Could be. But I think not.
I don't get this. "Could be" suggests that you accept that my
proposed alternative is viable. "But I think not" then appears
to negate that allowance.
Anyway, it's not my word, it's not in common
usage, there is no reason to suspect atheists hate religion as hohophobes
hate homosexuals, and I only guessed at its definition.
Just as a point of clarification, I do suspect that Atheists generally
do have hate at the core of their views toward religion. For those
Atheists that assert "there is no god", this conflict should be simple to
resolve--just ask them to justify their assertion.
Find another
strawman. Find another debating partner.
Sorry things did not work out better. May you live long and prosper.
Happy Trails!
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
01 Jan 2004 11:43:52 PM |
|
|
On 1 Jan 2004 05:44:23 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
This is strange. Do you really think my life experience with Atheists
is limited to this newsgroup?
It's evidently limited to atheists who have been attacked by
Christians. Theism isn't important enough to an atheist for him to
discuss the issue unless a theist raises it. Do you go around
attacking the Easter Beagle?
If
I walked into a church, elbowed the preacher out of the way, and started
refuting their doctrines, how do you think I would be received?
They would probably hate you, too.
But if they hated atheism for his action, it would mark them as being
ignorant.
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
Can't you read? You'd have to believe a god was real in order to be afraid
of that god.
OK, got it. But I think your statement, as stated is narrow to the
point of being unuseful.
The bottom line is that atheists don't hate or fear any god - which is
the whole point.
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
Logic, science, the unsuccessful search for evidence that a god is.
Please show me the logic.
No objective evidence of the objective existence of any god. That's
all that's needed to not accept the assertion that one exists.
I don't see how science is relevant. Science is useful in building
behavioral models. It is limited by the wielder's perceptions
and reasoning abilities. Indeed, as far as I know, no one has ever
presented a portable, synthetic proof of anything. Your definitive
"there is no god" implies an underlying synthetic proof.
No, it just states, not implies, that there's never been any objective
evidence of the objective existence of any god. And, barring that,
the default position on any claim, especially an extraordinary one, is
"no".
Just as a point of clarification, I do suspect that Atheists generally
do have hate at the core of their views toward religion.
Why would I, never having been Christian, hate Christianity? Do you,
never having been a Hindu, hate Hinduism?
(BTW, the only time atheist or atheism are capitalized is at the
beginning of a sentence.)
For those Atheists that assert "there is no god", this conflict should be simple to
resolve--just ask them to justify their assertion.
Atheism, qua atheism, doesn't make that claim. Some atheists do, but
that's not part of atheism.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
02 Jan 2004 06:35:06 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<lk0avvgtjvkuts67493ngjos5mq8136r05@Pern.rk>...
On 1 Jan 2004 05:44:23 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
This is strange. Do you really think my life experience with Atheists
is limited to this newsgroup?
It's evidently limited to atheists who have been attacked by
Christians.
There could be some truth to this. I can't say that I have ever
met a self-declared Atheist who has told me that they have never
been attacked by an Atheist.
Theism isn't important enough to an atheist for him to
discuss the issue unless a theist raises it. Do you go around
attacking the Easter Beagle?
This is a bit strange to me. If I look at the threads in this
newsgroup, for example, discussions that relate to Theism
seem pretty common. A lot of Atheists appear to be participating;
i.e., contributing considerable discretionary effort. The
Atheist patricipation looks anything but indifferent. Indeed,
my understanding is that this charter of this group was specifically
to handle such discussions, and that Atheists for whom such discussions
really aren't important can life happily in moderated groups like
soc.religion.atheism, where such discussions are verboten.
What are you doing here?
If
I walked into a church, elbowed the preacher out of the way, and started
refuting their doctrines, how do you think I would be received?
They would probably hate you, too.
But if they hated atheism for his action, it would mark them as being
ignorant.
How would you label Atheists who declare "There are no gods", but
cannot justify that assertion?
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
Can't you read? You'd have to believe a god was real in order to be afraid
of that god.
OK, got it. But I think your statement, as stated is narrow to the
point of being unuseful.
The bottom line is that atheists don't hate or fear any god - which is
the whole point.
Then, for Atheists who emphatically assert "there are no gods", but
are unable or unwilling to defend that assertion, why do they make
that assertion?
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
Logic, science, the unsuccessful search for evidence that a god is.
Please show me the logic.
No objective evidence of the objective existence of any god. That's
all that's needed to not accept the assertion that one exists.
No, "No objective evidence of the objective existence of any god" has
no necessary logical relation to "there are no gods".
I don't see how science is relevant. Science is useful in building
behavioral models. It is limited by the wielder's perceptions
and reasoning abilities. Indeed, as far as I know, no one has ever
presented a portable, synthetic proof of anything. Your definitive
"there is no god" implies an underlying synthetic proof.
No, it just states, not implies, that there's never been any objective
evidence of the objective existence of any god. And, barring that,
the default position on any claim, especially an extraordinary one, is
"no".
No, the default position is "I don't know".
I can assert emphatically that "there are no closed-form solutions
to 5th or higher order polynomials". That follows not from lack
of evidence for such solution, but from mathematical proof.
Just as a point of clarification, I do suspect that Atheists generally
do have hate at the core of their views toward religion.
Why would I, never having been Christian, hate Christianity?
This is bizarre. A lot of people who have never been a white
supremacist hate white supremacists.
(BTW, the only time atheist or atheism are capitalized is at the
beginning of a sentence.)
I have difficulty deciding how to handle that. I am not consistent
in my usage. I'll have th think about that some more to settle into
a more consistent usage.
For those Atheists that assert "there is no god", this conflict should be simple to
resolve--just ask them to justify their assertion.
Atheism, qua atheism, doesn't make that claim. Some atheists do, but
that's not part of atheism.
Some self-declared Atheists make that claim. I think a more useful model
than your model is that there are different classes of Atheists, some of
which do assert "there are no gods".
Shawn
The North American Rationalist Society
www.na-rs.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
02 Jan 2004 04:06:08 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2004 04:35:06 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<lk0avvgtjvkuts67493ngjos5mq8136r05@Pern.rk>...
On 1 Jan 2004 05:44:23 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
This is strange. Do you really think my life experience with Atheists
is limited to this newsgroup?
It's evidently limited to atheists who have been attacked by
Christians.
There could be some truth to this. I can't say that I have ever
met a self-declared Atheist who has told me that they have never
been attacked by an Atheist.
Theism isn't important enough to an atheist for him to
discuss the issue unless a theist raises it. Do you go around
attacking the Easter Beagle?
This is a bit strange to me. If I look at the threads in this
newsgroup, for example, discussions that relate to Theism
seem pretty common.
But, as I said, we don't think about theism unless some theist brings
it up - as is the case here.
A lot of Atheists appear to be participating;
i.e., contributing considerable discretionary effort.
Responding to the posts of theists.
The Atheist patricipation looks anything but indifferent. Indeed,
my understanding is that this charter of this group was specifically
to handle such discussions
The purpose of alt.atheism is for atheists to discuss issues of
interest to atheists. This ranges from whether there is a god to
recipes for beer-brewing..
and that Atheists for whom such discussions
really aren't important can life happily in moderated groups like
soc.religion.atheism, where such discussions are verboten.
Or alt.atheism, where they're also verboten unless a few atheists want
to discuss them.
What are you doing here?
Talking to friends. Or I would be, if theists didn't keep posting
about how wrong we are and about how we're going to go to their hell
if we don't accept their savior.
If
I walked into a church, elbowed the preacher out of the way, and started
refuting their doctrines, how do you think I would be received?
They would probably hate you, too.
But if they hated atheism for his action, it would mark them as being
ignorant.
How would you label Atheists who declare "There are no gods", but
cannot justify that assertion?
In response to "My god exists"? It's a request for the theist to back
up his assertion. (Careful - don't commit the fallacy of shifting the
burden.)
As a statement standing on its own in alt.atheism? I've never seen
it.
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must one
"believe" to attack Christianity?
Can't you read? You'd have to believe a god was real in order to be afraid
of that god.
OK, got it. But I think your statement, as stated is narrow to the
point of being unuseful.
The bottom line is that atheists don't hate or fear any god - which is
the whole point.
Then, for Atheists who emphatically assert "there are no gods", but
are unable or unwilling to defend that assertion, why do they make
that assertion?
It's in response to "My god exists", and you just shifted the burden.
(It's the existentially POSITIVE assertion that requires proof. Since
only a god could prove that no god exists, which is impossible, asking
for proof that some X doesn't exist - anywhere in the universe - is
fallacious.)
In either case, there is no god.
Please justify your assertion. Theophobia or something else?
Logic, science, the unsuccessful search for evidence that a god is.
Please show me the logic.
No objective evidence of the objective existence of any god. That's
all that's needed to not accept the assertion that one exists.
No, "No objective evidence of the objective existence of any god" has
no necessary logical relation to "there are no gods".
It does to "There's no logical reason to believe in any god", though.
It does as a response to "My god exists". (It means "I choose to not
accept your assertion without objective evidence".)
I don't see how science is relevant. Science is useful in building
behavioral models. It is limited by the wielder's perceptions
and reasoning abilities. Indeed, as far as I know, no one has ever
presented a portable, synthetic proof of anything. Your definitive
"there is no god" implies an underlying synthetic proof.
No, it just states, not implies, that there's never been any objective
evidence of the objective existence of any god. And, barring that,
the default position on any claim, especially an extraordinary one, is
"no".
No, the default position is "I don't know".
The default position is "I don't accept your assertion". We're
talking about belief, not knowledge.
I can assert emphatically that "there are no closed-form solutions
to 5th or higher order polynomials". That follows not from lack
of evidence for such solution, but from mathematical proof.
It's provable - claims about gods that can't be tested aren't.
Just as a point of clarification, I do suspect that Atheists generally
do have hate at the core of their views toward religion.
Why would I, never having been Christian, hate Christianity?
This is bizarre. A lot of people who have never been a white
supremacist hate white supremacists.
Not the least bit analogous. I didn't ask why I would hate
Christians, I asked why I would hate Christianity?
(BTW, the only time atheist or atheism are capitalized is at the
beginning of a sentence.)
I have difficulty deciding how to handle that. I am not consistent
in my usage. I'll have th think about that some more to settle into
a more consistent usage.
It's not a proper noun, so why would it be capitalized? Do you
capitalize 'asynchronous'?
For those Atheists that assert "there is no god", this conflict should be simple to
resolve--just ask them to justify their assertion.
Atheism, qua atheism, doesn't make that claim. Some atheists do, but
that's not part of atheism.
Some self-declared Atheists make that claim.
But it's not part of atheism, qua atheism.
I think a more useful model
than your model is that there are different classes of Atheists, some of
which do assert "there are no gods".
No, there are atheists who have opinions on things outside of atheism.
Some think coffee ice cream is fit for human consumption, some think
that Bush is one of our greatest presidents and some think that there
is no god. None of these have anything to do with atheism.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thephobia vs. Atheism? |
03 Jan 2004 06:49:54 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<h2qbvvoeb9oj9o6ma90fq1703loo9jldo1@Pern.rk>...
On 2 Jan 2004 04:35:06 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<lk0avvgtjvkuts67493ngjos5mq8136r05@Pern.rk>...
On 1 Jan 2004 05:44:23 -0800, (shawn) posted to
alt.atheism:
This is strange. Do you really think my life experience with Atheists
is limited to this newsgroup?
It's evidently limited to atheists who have been attacked by
Christians.
There could be some truth to this. I can't say that I have ever
met a self-declared Atheist who has told me that they have never
been attacked by an Atheist.
Theism isn't important enough to an atheist for him to
discuss the issue unless a theist raises it. Do you go around
attacking the Easter Beagle?
This is a bit strange to me. If I look at the threads in this
newsgroup, for example, discussions that relate to Theism
seem pretty common.
But, as I said, we don't think about theism unless some theist brings
it up - as is the case here.
Not to belabor the point, but the Atheists in this group appear
to spend a lot of time on this issue. That participation does
not look at all like casual indifference.
[...]
The purpose of alt.atheism is for atheists to discuss issues of
interest to atheists. This ranges from whether there is a god to
recipes for beer-brewing..
and that Atheists for whom such discussions
really aren't important can life happily in moderated groups like
soc.religion.atheism, where such discussions are verboten.
Or alt.atheism, where they're also verboten unless a few atheists want
to discuss them.
I don't think this is true. The soc.religion.atheism FAQ gives
history
on why alt.atheism was created. Looks to me like it was created to
provide a forum for Theists, Atheists, and anybody else to debate
subjects that were deemed outside the intended scope of
soc.religion.atheism.
Indeed, this is an unmoderated newsgroup, so short of libel laws &
terms
of service, nothing is verboten.
What are you doing here?
Talking to friends. Or I would be, if theists didn't keep posting
about how wrong we are and about how we're going to go to their hell
if we don't accept their savior.
Again, I really think you would be happier if you would abort your
participation in this group, and shift your focus to
soc.religion.atheism.
If
I walked into a church, elbowed the preacher out of the way, and started
refuting their doctrines, how do you think I would be received?
They would probably hate you, too.
But if they hated atheism for his action, it would mark them as being
ignorant.
How would you label Atheists who declare "There are no gods", but
cannot justify that assertion?
In response to "My god exists"? It's a request for the theist to back
up his assertion. (Careful - don't commit the fallacy of shifting the
burden.)
As a statement standing on its own in alt.atheism? I've never seen
it.
Are you saying that you have not seen the assertion "no gods exist"
in alt.atheism?
(Got to believe it's real
to be afraid of it.)
I really don't get this. For example, what specifically must o | | | | | | | | | |