Serious Question. Honest.

Religions > Atheism > Serious Question. Honest.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 36

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Therion Ware"
Date:	10 Oct 2003 12:07:11 PM
Object:	Serious Question. Honest.

Message originates from alt.atheism. You have been warned!
We Godless atheists are sometimes asked by believers of various
stripe: "what would convince you there is a God?".
By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.

User: "Thomas P."
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	17 Oct 2003 11:58:17 AM

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:04:46 -0700, "Iconoclast" <icono@home.net>
wrote:

"Robibnikoff" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:hfSjb.24388$cJ5.3759@www.newsranger.com...

In article <5qJjb.68097$vj2.64575@fed1read06>, Iconoclast says...
snippage

You really are ignorant of psychology and sociology and humans.

Were you born believing in a god? A yes or no will suffice.

Yes, as all are.

Yes, indeed! I remember it like it was yesterday. I came out
commenting on transubstantiation.

Some learn who God is later.

And become atheists.

Some learn to believe strongly in a non-belief.

Is that anything like unbirthdays? I am having an unbirthday today.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 04:33:34 PM

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:30:45 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

If you give specific examples, you can think through whether belief is
required for something's existence. For most examples, belief is not
required: gravity, books, the ground, trees, atomic particles, Gary
Coleman, etc.

<G> How about not believing in electricity? "I haven't paid my electric
bill this month...I didn't see it..." (Stephen Wright)

Ha ha.
But let's take electricity as an example.
Electricity exists, as a quabtifiable, measurable phenomenon.
You can see sparks when you play around with electrical current. You
can measure voltage. Electricity makes certain appliances work, like
my coffee maker.
No belief required.
If you don't believe in electricity, then nothing will happen to you
when you stick your tongue into a light socket. Go ahead. Let me know
how that turns out.
You can also do the same experiment with a plugged-in toaster and a
fork. Or by taking a plugged-in hair-dryer into the bathtub with you.
Wanna hear my "feel free not to believe in gravity" schtick?

I realise I am stretching somewhat...but I *do* like a good conversation
and/or debate among friends...
Buny

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 04:28:13 PM

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:30:45 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

Let's take the example of my dog (probably a bad example, since I will
be anthropomorphizing my beloved canine companion)

<G> Don't we all do that, though?

Of course! That's what pets are here for.

dog loves me. he curls up next to me at night, and on the couch
during Buffy reruns (affection). He warded off a potential mugger more
than once (protection).

IMO, those actions qualify as love. My dog loves me, as evidenced
through observable, quantifiable behavior.
I love my dog. I feed him, care for him, protect him, give him
cookies, and rub his head.
No belief is required from either of us that we love each other.

Perhaps...

No perhaps. I've just given you evidence that my dog loves me (as
humans understand love, at any rate.)
And the love from my dog is still a quantifiable, obse rvable
phenomenon, as is my love for him (Besides, he's so cute! Have I sent
you a pic?)

but what if the curling up to you is merely a response to his
needing warmth, or instinctual pack mentality?

So?

You are "alpha dog", so he
retains some of the puppy instincts...no "love", merely pack mentality
(i.e., does a dog in the wild "love" the pack, or only depend on it for
survivla?) The warding off mugger? Again, pack mentality of protecting
what is his...

So? We're talking about how I, the human, perceive dog's actions. If
dog wants to to call it something else, then he can jolly well leave a
note on the fridge.
His actions constitute love, as humans understand it.
Now, if dog was, for example, Ricky Martin, and was doing the exact
same things for me, there would be no question that there was some
level of love going on (I wish!)
Plus, we could always hook Ricky up to a n MRI or EEG and see what his
brain is doing in reaction to the stimuli (i.e., me -- I WISH!) to
create the emotions that we can observe, through the brain scan AND
evidenced by his actions and seklf-reporting (describing the feelings,
which we are also watching and codifying on the MRI).

Please note that I am not trying to say that dog doesn't love you...but am
going to the other side of the fence ("devil's advocate") to argue the
point....actually, to argue the "you cannot believe in things that cannot be
scientifically proven...such as emotion"...

Huh? Where do you want me to start shredding?
Let's work backwards, today.
Thanks to modern technology (and the science), emotions are
quantifiabale, measurable phenomena.
An MRI and/or an EEG willshow the brain's reaction to certain
stimuli, which reactions cause the sensations of emotion.
If "emotion" is some kind of amorphous thingamabob, freefrom
explanation and, in your case, reality, then feel free to explain why
SSRI's, coccaine, and alcohol cause emotions to change.
I never, not once, have said or implied that one can not believe in
things that can not be scientifically proven. It happens every day *cf
religion).

.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 02:38:12 PM

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:30:45 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

Theism is a choice.
Atheism is the default position. We are all born atheists.
Theism/belief is learned. Atheism is not.

I can understand that POV.

Honey, it's not some POV or just an opinion, unless you can find a
newborn with the cognitive skills to articulate a belief in a deity.
Theism is still a choice. Atheism is stil te default position, with
which we are all born (lacking belief).

However, I cannot see me as "choosing" to
believe something that has been a part of my life-a central part.

Non-exercise of a choice does not negate the choice's existence.
(Note the deft use of a triple negative, too!)

It has
been part of my thought processes, part of my psyche as it were, for so
long, I cannot see "deciding to cut it out."

But the choice is still there, and you have, even if only briefly,
pondered it and acknowledged it.

It is possible that we are all born atheists-

More than possible.

but since a child learns
practically from first breath--but does not speak for a long time--it is
unlikely that we will ever be able to find out for certainty.

No newborn has the cognitive skill to process or be aware of a complex
belief system, such as Catholicism.
If you believe otherwise, then you may produce (bad choice of wording,
but you know what I mean) a child who has the cognitive ability to
articulate such a belief system.

Does a child
of atheists grow up to be an atheist? Probably...

Or not. Madlyn Murry-O'Hair's eldest son is a Bible-thumping theist.
Conversely, I was raised by Catholics in the faith, and now I'm an
atheist. I made the choice to get the heck out (of the church).

but does that mean he/she
will always be one? I have difficulty dealing with absolutes, so I would
have to say that should be a "no".
Does a child of those who believe in a certain faith grow up to retain that
faith? Probably...but the same reasoning applies that he/she is not
guaranteed to keep it.

And all this, while lovely and sentimental, has nothing to do with
atheism being the default position, in ciontrast to theism, which
must be learned. No one is born a believer.
Theism is a choice. One can choose to accept it, or not.
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 02:48:09 PM

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:30:45 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

A person who believes in something and a person who does not believe in

that

thing are both exercising _____ part of their mind....

Physologically, people who believe are letting a part of their brain
shut down (cf EEG's of people praying or having a "religious
experience"), while physiologically people who are atheists are using
critical thinking skills to and are exercising that part of their
brain.

Or, could it be a case of hyperfocus...as in the case of meditation.

During meditation or prayer, the higher reasoning centers of the
brain shut down. It is a measurable, quantifiable phenomenon.
You are conflatinbg "hyperfocus" with hyperstimulation, a measurable,
quantifiable effect of both hemispheres of the brain working more in
unison, with a greater number of neural and synaptci signals firing
across the corpus collosum. An example of this would be when a
musician performs, his/her brain enters a hyper-stimulated state,
where the left brain (the artistic side) increases communication with
the right side (the mechanical/technical side), and vice versa , to
create the right note, in tune, and expressively (the right volume,
tone color, etc.).

I have
compared the state of hyperfocus I have entered when doing T'ai Chi Chuan to
the state of hyperfocus I enter when I have done contemplative rosary (which
has not been that often--t'ai chi, on the other hand, I did several times a
week while pursuing my black belt in kung fu some years back). It is not
"shutting down" part of the brain,

Yes, it is. You're about to say so yourself.

but actually using it in a different way,
a more focused way.

Yes, focusing on the pleasure centers to release dopamine and
endorphins, while the higher reasoning centers shut down.
Thank you for proving my point <smirk>

Another example can be seen in the Lamaze technique, or
self-induced hypnosis...

Having done neither myself (especially Lamaze), but having just
shredded your previous example, I would need more info on what happens
during Lamaze. IMO, self-hypnosis is crap, but that's just me.

Or, perhaps not...that is my experience and theory.

And during meditation or prayer, the higher reasoning centers of the
brain still shut down.
.

User: "John Hattan"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 04:12:08 PM

maf 1029 <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:45:05 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"maf 1029" <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote in message
news:ogmhovcalgf2q8mk74kkcqtq5umgmlmc7l@4ax.com...

In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...

And having a coin is still not the same as lacking a coin.

And not having a coin collection is not a hobby.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 04:27:20 PM

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:12:08 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
wrote:

maf 1029 <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:45:05 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"maf 1029" <maf1029@hotmailabc.com> wrote in message
news:ogmhovcalgf2q8mk74kkcqtq5umgmlmc7l@4ax.com...

In my view, belief or non-belief are two sides of the same coin...

And having a coin is still not the same as lacking a coin.

And not having a coin collection is not a hobby.

How profound!
May I add this to my quote file? <g>
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 05:01:09 PM

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<zRYhb.78619$a16.16307@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental. I
realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said that.
All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard to
"change". Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions. Just as Christians do not accept the
assertions of other religions, even if they are older, those outside of
your religion do not accept yours.

I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise that
this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.

Often it can be, but mainly on the theist side.... :)

Buny

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "SumBuny"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	14 Oct 2003 01:37:51 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<zRYhb.78619$a16.16307@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.

realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said

that.

All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard

"change". Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking what
are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

Just as Christians do not accept the
assertions of other religions, even if they are older, those outside of
your religion do not accept yours.

Hence my term "belief"...they do not believe the same things I do, but
believe something else...even if the belief is that religion is false.

I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise

that

this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.

Often it can be, but mainly on the theist side.... :)

I am not so sure...I have seen many angry attacks from atheists accusing
theists of being "mindless, unthinking, automatons, sheep..."etc. Not
saying one or the other is better, but that we all can easily be guilty of
this...
Buny
.

User: "John Hattan"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	14 Oct 2003 01:56:39 PM

"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking what
are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

There's your problem. Atheism is not an assertion. Atheism is the lack
of the property of theism in the same way that asymmetry is not the
assertion that symmetry does not exist but is the lack of the property
of symmetry.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.

User: "SumBuny"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	14 Oct 2003 03:31:25 PM

"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:jhhoovk91iac3gq9lgl1jcotblmrqgd059@4ax.com...

"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking

what

are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

Is not atheism the assertion that there is no deity?
Buny
.

User: "John Hattan"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	14 Oct 2003 04:02:44 PM

"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:jhhoovk91iac3gq9lgl1jcotblmrqgd059@4ax.com...

"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking

what

are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

Is not atheism the assertion that there is no deity?

While asserting there is no deity would certainly assume that one would
lack belief in gods, it is not required. Simply lacking belief in gods
(i.e. lacking the property of theism) is all that's required for one to
be an atheist.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 04:45:30 PM

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:31:25 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:jhhoovk91iac3gq9lgl1jcotblmrqgd059@4ax.com...

"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking

what

are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

Is not atheism the assertion that there is no deity?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And it's not as if we haven't had this discussion multiple times,
buny.
.

User: "John Hattan"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 04:59:39 PM

maf 1029 <maf1029@ghihotmailjkl.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:31:25 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:jhhoovk91iac3gq9lgl1jcotblmrqgd059@4ax.com...

"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking

what

are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

Is not atheism the assertion that there is no deity?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it's not as if we haven't had this discussion multiple times,
buny.

Is not asymmetry the assertion that there is no symmetry?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 05:55:41 PM

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:59:39 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
wrote:

maf 1029 <maf1029@ghihotmailjkl.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:31:25 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:jhhoovk91iac3gq9lgl1jcotblmrqgd059@4ax.com...

"SumBuny" <sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking

what

are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

Is not atheism the assertion that there is no deity?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it's not as if we haven't had this discussion multiple times,
buny.

Is not asymmetry the assertion that there is no symmetry?

Actually, no.

---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com

User: "John Hattan"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 07:30:30 PM

maf 1029 <maf1029@ghihotmailjkl.com> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:59:39 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
wrote:

maf 1029 <maf1029@ghihotmailjkl.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:31:25 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

Is not atheism the assertion that there is no deity?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it's not as if we haven't had this discussion multiple times,
buny.

Is not asymmetry the assertion that there is no symmetry?

Actually, no.

I know. That was my point.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	16 Oct 2003 04:15:15 AM

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:30:30 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
wrote:

maf 1029 <maf1029@ghihotmailjkl.com> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 16:59:39 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
wrote:

maf 1029 <maf1029@ghihotmailjkl.com> wrote:

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:31:25 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

Is not atheism the assertion that there is no deity?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it's not as if we haven't had this discussion multiple times,
buny.

Is not asymmetry the assertion that there is no symmetry?

Actually, no.

I know. That was my point.

Sorry. I was trying to go decaff today, and it wasn't pretty.
.

User: "maf 1029"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 04:44:49 PM

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:37:51 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net> wrote:

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking what
are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

An evangelical baptist.
Seriously, what "unsupported assertions" do you imagine atheists are
making?

.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 12:11:59 PM

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:37:51 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<crXib.86467$a16.39541@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:skjjovktdnnma4aj280pffj23pgoabgpvf@4ax.com...

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:33:08 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<zRYhb.78619$a16.16307@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

<G> Probably not...which is why I try not to come across as judgemental.

realise that both "sides" are basically people with the same issues, the
same needs, the same wants...and the same type of beliefs-yes I said

that.

All involved believe in their own points of view and will be just as hard

"change". Nothing wrong with that, IMHO, it is human nature.

Not at all. A lack of belief is not a belief. It is not accepting
theist unsupported assertions.

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking what
are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

That the individual lacks belief in deity(ies)? Such is a personal item
which does not require proof.

Just as Christians do not accept the
assertions of other religions, even if they are older, those outside of
your religion do not accept yours.

Hence my term "belief"...they do not believe the same things I do, but
believe something else...even if the belief is that religion is false.

Sure. However, with regard to those other religions, you lack belief in
them.

I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do realise

that

this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.

Often it can be, but mainly on the theist side.... :)

I am not so sure...I have seen many angry attacks from atheists accusing
theists of being "mindless, unthinking, automatons, sheep..."etc.

Which is often demonstrated.
Christianity is one religion that goes out and bothers the hell out of
people to the tune of daemonization if not cultural and actual genocide.

Not saying one or the other is better, but that we all can easily be guilty of
this...

"Can" be, yes. However, I have yet to have an atheist bang on my door
on a weekend morning.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "SumBuny"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	15 Oct 2003 01:17:11 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:uevqov4dopj7lfn9ltfjjs8cs4omuskm22@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:37:51 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<crXib.86467$a16.39541@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking

what

are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

That the individual lacks belief in deity(ies)? Such is a personal item
which does not require proof.

Fair enough...my point is the same...my faith is a personal item that does
not require proof.

Just as Christians do not accept the
assertions of other religions, even if they are older, those outside of
your religion do not accept yours.

Hence my term "belief"...they do not believe the same things I do, but
believe something else...even if the belief is that religion is false.

Sure. However, with regard to those other religions, you lack belief in
them.

I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do

realise

that

this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.

Often it can be, but mainly on the theist side.... :)

I am not so sure...I have seen many angry attacks from atheists accusing
theists of being "mindless, unthinking, automatons, sheep..."etc.

Which is often demonstrated.

True...but I have seem the same behavior from those (not only here..I
frequent other boards as well) who claim no religion...

Christianity is one religion that goes out and bothers the hell out of
people to the tune of daemonization if not cultural and actual genocide.

Not saying one or the other is better, but that we all can easily be

guilty of

this...

"Can" be, yes. However, I have yet to have an atheist bang on my door
on a weekend morning.

<G> Wait until Halloween....who knows how many trick or treaters are of
what (or no) faith? (yep, I *do* know what you really mean)
Buny
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	16 Oct 2003 03:49:41 PM

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:17:11 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<46gjb.88050$a16.24881@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:uevqov4dopj7lfn9ltfjjs8cs4omuskm22@4ax.com...

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:37:51 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<crXib.86467$a16.39541@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

What do you call someone who does not accept (to their way of thinking

what

are) unsupported assertions of atheists?

That the individual lacks belief in deity(ies)? Such is a personal item
which does not require proof.

Fair enough...my point is the same...my faith is a personal item that does
not require proof.

Correct. You consider it to be a personal matter which, incidentally,
follows "Jesus's" directive in Matthew (6:5? or 5:6?) to not be like
the hypocrites and pray in public to be seen.
Where objective supporting evidence is required when such is moved from
the private realm into the public-as xtians continually try to do.

Just as Christians do not accept the
assertions of other religions, even if they are older, those outside of
your religion do not accept yours.

Hence my term "belief"...they do not believe the same things I do, but
believe something else...even if the belief is that religion is false.

Sure. However, with regard to those other religions, you lack belief in
them.

I would like to say that I would "agree to disagree". But I do

realise

that

this is a personal, and often emotional issue, and things will be
said/posted in the heat of the moment.

Often it can be, but mainly on the theist side.... :)

I am not so sure...I have seen many angry attacks from atheists accusing
theists of being "mindless, unthinking, automatons, sheep..."etc.

Which is often demonstrated.

True...but I have seem the same behavior from those (not only here..I
frequent other boards as well) who claim no religion...

1) Nit pick: Such is not a claim. Generally, such is a statement of
fact (generally because there are lots of trolls) which only applies to
the individual.
2) Such can be so. Both the institution of the church and followers
have a lot to be responsible for. Many folks were 'royally worked over'
by both and have a lot of anger they've still got to work through.

Christianity is one religion that goes out and bothers the hell out of
people to the tune of daemonization if not cultural and actual genocide.

Not saying one or the other is better, but that we all can easily be

guilty of

this...

"Can" be, yes. However, I have yet to have an atheist bang on my door
on a weekend morning.

<G> Wait until Halloween....who knows how many trick or treaters are of
what (or no) faith? (yep, I *do* know what you really mean)

Hehehehe..... (noted)
It's not worthwhile for trick-or-treaters to take the time to travel to
my door. It would take more time than the effort is worth.
What does bother the 'daylights' out of me is those sick individuals who
sabotage a childs candy. May they all be caught and be cell mates with
'bubba.'

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "SumBuny"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	17 Oct 2003 03:09:35 PM

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:rf0uov09up3b9ruri5pt8bk9q3sis3po8n@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:17:11 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<46gjb.88050$a16.24881@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Can" be, yes. However, I have yet to have an atheist bang on my door
on a weekend morning.

<G> Wait until Halloween....who knows how many trick or treaters are of
what (or no) faith? (yep, I *do* know what you really mean)

<nodding>...and may none of them have "soap on a rope"....
Buny
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	18 Oct 2003 11:05:35 AM

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:09:35 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<lXXjb.89500$a16.80470@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:rf0uov09up3b9ruri5pt8bk9q3sis3po8n@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:17:11 -0500, "SumBuny"
<sumbunyTHIS_DOES_NOT_BELONG_HERE@cox.net>, Message ID:
<46gjb.88050$a16.24881@lakeread01> wrote in alt.atheism;

"Can" be, yes. However, I have yet to have an atheist bang on my door
on a weekend morning.

<G> Wait until Halloween....who knows how many trick or treaters are of
what (or no) faith? (yep, I *do* know what you really mean)

<nodding>...and may none of them have "soap on a rope"....

that or the rope breaks and the soap falls....

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "Figinn"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	10 Oct 2003 03:55:51 PM

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

As this was a respectful question, I shall offer a respectful answer.
No.
God could exist without our knowledge. God could exist whether anybody
believed or not. God could even exist with extraordinary evidence to the
contrary, if that God chose not to be revealed. God does not depend on us
for his existence. Every man, woman and child could stop believing and God
could still be doing whatever it is that God does ... possibly playing
marbles with the planets ...
That's also my standard set of answers for those folks that call me a
delusional mental case merely because I believe in God. The truth remains
that there is absolutely no way for anybody to be absolutely sure there
*isn't* a God. And maybe I *am* a mental case and talk regularly with my
imaginary friend. So what? I ain't hurting you and I ain't hurting me. I
won't know until I die ... oh wait ... I won't know then either ... I'll be
dead and gone.
I got called the "antichrist" today because I told a Christian I didn't
believe in the 100% infalibility of the Bible. I wish all those
antagonistic atheists out there posting in this thread would remember that
not all theists are of like mind. Most of us could give a warm lump of *****
what you believe in.
Figinn
.

User: "Therion Ware"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 02:21:27 AM

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:55:51 -0400 in alt.atheism, Figinn ("Figinn"
<nospam@verizon.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

Well, I have to say that I think you're indulging in a bit of
equivocation here in as much as while some varieties of God could
exist without our knowledge, other kinds could not. The Christian God
seems to me to be a case in point. He is after all by common consent a
God who reveals Himself in History, and who tells us things we can
know in no other way. A deist type God on the other hand ...

That's also my standard set of answers for those folks that call me a
delusional mental case merely because I believe in God. The truth remains
that there is absolutely no way for anybody to be absolutely sure there
*isn't* a God. And maybe I *am* a mental case and talk regularly with my
imaginary friend. So what? I ain't hurting you and I ain't hurting me. I
won't know until I die ... oh wait ... I won't know then either ... I'll be
dead and gone.

I got called the "antichrist" today because I told a Christian I didn't
believe in the 100% infalibility of the Bible. I wish all those
antagonistic atheists out there posting in this thread would remember that
not all theists are of like mind. Most of us could give a warm lump of *****
what you believe in.

Which is to say that most of you are absolutely indifferent to the
prospect of your fellow man roasting in hell for most of the remainder
of eternity?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.

User: "Figinn"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 05:45:37 AM

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:sugkovgcvvadp33hof6mc9oq51eucgrghb@4ax.com...

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:55:51 -0400 in alt.atheism, Figinn ("Figinn"
<nospam@verizon.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

for his existence. Every man, woman and child could stop believing and

God

could still be doing whatever it is that God does ... possibly playing
marbles with the planets ...

That's also my standard set of answers for those folks that call me a
delusional mental case merely because I believe in God. The truth

remains

that there is absolutely no way for anybody to be absolutely sure there
*isn't* a God. And maybe I *am* a mental case and talk regularly with my
imaginary friend. So what? I ain't hurting you and I ain't hurting me.

won't know until I die ... oh wait ... I won't know then either ... I'll

dead and gone.

I got called the "antichrist" today because I told a Christian I didn't
believe in the 100% infalibility of the Bible. I wish all those
antagonistic atheists out there posting in this thread would remember

that

not all theists are of like mind. Most of us could give a warm lump of

*****

what you believe in.

Which is to say that most of you are absolutely indifferent to the
prospect of your fellow man roasting in hell for most of the remainder
of eternity?

I can only speak for myself on that one, obviously.
No, I really don't care what you believe in or have lack of belief in.
No, I don't believe in "roasting in hell" as portrayed in common Christian
doctrine.
If that Christian doctrine is in fact true, I fear that I will "roast" as
well.
I would not call that indifference. I call it letting my fellow humans make
their own choices. If there are consequences to be faced, then they will be
faced, regardless of my own beliefs or actions.
Figinn
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	13 Oct 2003 08:10:58 PM

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:21:27 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com>, Message ID:
<sugkovgcvvadp33hof6mc9oq51eucgrghb@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:55:51 -0400 in alt.atheism, Figinn ("Figinn"
<nospam@verizon.net>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:pfpdovkugui5rg9okmo44bojfolmn13o2s@4ax.com...

Which is to say that most of you are absolutely indifferent to the
prospect of your fellow man roasting in hell for most of the remainder
of eternity?

Yep. Don't you just *love* xtian 'empathy, love, and compassion?'
What a lovely demonstration of pure selfishness and coveting.

Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.

User: "xyzzy"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 07:42:38 AM

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote

By the same token I'm curious to know is there is any matter of fact,
that if shown beyond any doubt to be true, or at least beyond
reasonable dispute, that would convince you believers that there is no
God.

As this was a respectful question, I shall offer a respectful answer.

No.

How can you be so sure? It is well documented that there are theists
who turn atheist and vice versa. Are you fundementally different than
your fellow men? Maybe you are, maybe your God specially created you
such that your belief cannot be shaken. But then that would be more
telling of your God's injustice. Anyway, I would have thought a better
answer on your part would have been "I don't know for sure at the
moment and I would prefer not to hazard a guess".

God could exist without our knowledge. God could exist whether anybody
believed or not. God could even exist with extraordinary evidence to the
contrary, if that God chose not to be revealed. God does not depend on us
for his existence. Every man, woman and child could stop believing and God
could still be doing whatever it is that God does ... possibly playing
marbles with the planets ...

The question wasn't about God's existance but about your belief in
that, so that's all irrelevant. If you stopped believing in God, the
previous paragraph would have no meaning.
.

User: "Figinn"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	11 Oct 2003 12:53:56 PM

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote in message news:3f87f852.38465750@news...

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote

As this was a respectful question, I shall offer a respectful answer.

No.

Your thoughts of what my answer should have been (or "a better answer" as
you put it) are of little concern to me. I gave the short version.
However, I will add more as I have some time this afternoon ... if you're
not happy with it, I really don't care.
I have no belief that God "specially created" me so that my "belief cannot
be shaken." I've been on the other side over the years, starting when I
went to college and took over 30 hours of religion classes, including 4
semesters of Greek. This taught me that the Bible was not the absolute
source I had been taught as a child and threw me into a tailspin, with
regards to faith. It took me about 10 years to reach a point where I am
generally content with my beliefs. These beliefs are not wholly founded on
doctrine, religious texts (such as the Bible) or whether all my prayers get
answered the way I want them to.
So the answer is still no.

for his existence. Every man, woman and child could stop believing and

God

could still be doing whatever it is that God does ... possibly playing
marbles with the planets ...

The question wasn't about God's existance but about your belief in
that, so that's all irrelevant.

You misunderstand. It is quite relevant to me. If my beliefs are such that
God could exist without my knowledge or even without my approval, what could
possibly remove that belief? Essentially I would need God him/her/it-self
to tell me that God didn't exist. Quite a paradox.
I am curious, however. What type of events do you think would cause my
faith to waiver?
Someone close to me dying?
Something bad happening to me?
Me merely not getting my own way?
Those things that are issues for some have no relevance to me. Just cuz God
doesn't come down from on high and give me everything I want and/or ask for
does not mean that God doesn't still exist.

If you stopped believing in God, the
previous paragraph would have no meaning.

How so? I discussed in that paragraph my feelings that God could exist with
or without anybody acknowledging God. I could stop believing in God (for
whatever unknown reason) and the paragraph would still be true.
Figinn
.

User: "xyzzy"
Title: Re: Serious Question. Honest.	12 Oct 2003 07:50:52 AM

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"xyzzy" <xyzzy@xyzzy.com> wrote

"Figinn" <nospam@verizon.net> wrote:

"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote

As this was a respectful question, I shall offer a respectful answer.

No.

Your thoughts of what my answer should have been (or "a better answer" as
you put it) are of little concern to me. I gave the short version.
However, I will add more as I have some time this afternoon ... if you're
not happy with it, I really don't care.

I have no belief that God "specially created" me so that my "belief cannot
be shaken." I've been on the other side over the years, starting when I
went to college and took over 30 hours of religion classes, including 4
semesters of Greek. This taught me that the Bible was not the absolute
source I had been taught as a child and threw me into a tailspin, with
regards to faith. It took me about 10 years to reach a point where I am
generally content with my beliefs. These beliefs are not wholly founded on
doctrine, religious texts (such as the Bible) or whether all my prayers get
answered the way I want them to.

So far so good.

So the answer is still no.

Why do you put the word "so"? You haven't justified or explained why
your answer is "no".
I am wondering why you are unable to acknowledge that your beliefs can
still change, *especially* given your past history.

for his existence. Every man, woman and child could stop believing and

God

could still be doing whatever it is that God does ... possibly playing
marbles with the planets ...

The question wasn't about God's existance but about your belief in
that, so that's all irrelevant.

You misunderstand. It is quite relevant to me. If my beliefs are such that
God could exist without my knowledge or even without my approval, what could
possibly remove that belief?

I don't know exactly "what" but it appears to me that every single
theist who became atheist *used to* believe that God's existence was
not contingent on their belief in it. If you believe in God, it
automatically follows that you accept the doctrine. If you don't, the
doctrine doesn't make sense or carry any weight.
You seem to be under the impression that the belief in the objectivity
of a belief makes that belief immutable. It is painfully obvious to me
that this isn't so and I can explain in detail if you need me to. For
now, I'll give you one word: "Science". Think it over carefully.

Essentially I would need God him/her/it-self to tell me that God didn't exist.

Of course not. Ask any theist turned atheist. It's not God who spoke
to them.

Quite a paradox.

None whatsoever.

I am curious, however. What type of events do you think would cause my
faith to waiver?

It's not my call. I would think, however, a honest and reasonable
person would acknowledge that there may be such events, even if he is
unable to pinpoint them at the time.

Someone close to me dying?
Something bad happening to me?
Me merely not getting my own way?

Those things that are issues for some have no relevance to me.

Fine. But I am sure there are things of relevance to you.

Just cuz God
doesn't come down from on high and give me everything I want and/or ask for
does not mean that God doesn't still exist.

If you stopped believing in God, the
previous paragraph would have no meaning.

How so?

Because the question of whether God's existance depends on believers
or not is meaningless for an atheist for whom God is a work of
fiction. It's like asking if Kirk could defeat Piccard in a battle.

I discussed in that paragraph my feelings that God could exist with
or without anybody acknowledging God. I could stop believing in God (for
whatever unknown reason) and the paragraph would still be true.

No it wouldn't. It's not true for me. Not false either, mind you (ie I
am not of the camp that God's existance is contingent on the continued
presence of its followers). The paragraph simply is meaningless to me
for I don't pretend to know the conditions of existance of fictitious
characters.
.