The Different Kinds of Atheism

Religions > Atheism > The Different Kinds of Atheism

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 7

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"John W. Redelfs"
Date:	14 Jun 2006 08:01:17 AM
Object:	The Different Kinds of Atheism

I don't know a lot about atheism, so I joined this group to learn more
about it.
Are there different kinds of atheism? I mean, are there different
denominations or sects within atheism as there are within the formal
religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc?
What about humanism? Is humanism a form of atheism?
How about Marxism? Is Marxism a kind of atheism distinct from other
kinds?
If a person were going to categorize and classify atheists according to
their various beliefs, what kind of taxonomy would be best, and based
upon what criteria?
Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion. Are atheists in general hostile
to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?
If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?
Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?
How about the belief in an immaterial God? Some have suggested that a
belief in an immaterial God is essentially atheism because a belief
that there is no God is very similar to a belief in a God that is
nothing, or in other words, immaterial. This idea is highly offensive
to many religious people. Is it offensive to atheists too?
What about Deists? During the 18th century Deism was the religion of
many of our Founding Fathers, and they were considered to be virtual
atheists because for the most part they had rejected the formal,
denominational Protestantism of the day. Is Deism a form of atheism?
If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion in the
broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking? How about in the rest of the world?
The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. If there is no God, do men have rights? And if so,
where do they come from?
Perhaps some of these are stupid questions. If so, by what standard of
judgement are they considered stupid? What criteria is used? If I
could get intelligent answers to even a few of these questions, I would
know a great deal more about atheism than I do now. I am really very
uninformed on the topic. And I would like to know more.
.

User: "Jim07D6"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 10:35:02 AM

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.
--- Jim07D6
.

User: "The Preacher"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 05:00:17 PM

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

I don't know. So far I have been unable to think of any other reason
to suppose that men have rights except that they are children of God
who gave them these rights at birth, possibly even while still in the
womb. But just because I have been unable to think of such a reason
does not preclude that someone else might be able to come up with one.
I've just never heard an explanation for the existence of human rights
without the existence of God that I could understand, much less
believe. My guess is that atheists don't think much about rights at
all, but I could be wrong. I know so very little about atheists.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	15 Jun 2006 10:54:28 AM

"The Preacher" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150322417.702541.158800@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

That's very sad. You're incapable of thinking outside your religion at all?
This sounds like brainwashing.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	18 Jun 2006 11:15:45 PM

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:54:28 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism

"The Preacher" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150322417.702541.158800@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

That's very sad. You're incapable of thinking outside your religion at all?
This sounds like brainwashing.

Generally from birth and he's probably in his mid 50's.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "The Chief Instigator"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	19 Jun 2006 05:34:57 AM

stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:54:28 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism

"The Preacher" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150322417.702541.158800@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

That's very sad. You're incapable of thinking outside your religion at all?
This sounds like brainwashing.

Generally from birth and he's probably in his mid 50's.

I'm thankful that I managed to avoid that indoctrination, as I'm starting to
approach my mid-50s...I'm better off being the irreverent little ***** I've
always been.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	21 Jun 2006 11:24:03 AM

On 19 Jun 2006 05:34:57 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:54:28 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism

"The Preacher" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150322417.702541.158800@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

That's very sad. You're incapable of thinking outside your religion at all?
This sounds like brainwashing.

Generally from birth and he's probably in his mid 50's.

I'm thankful that I managed to avoid that indoctrination, as I'm starting to
approach my mid-50s...I'm better off being the irreverent little ***** I've
always been.

You picked better parents. I had to deprogram myself with nothing but
my own resources. No books, nothing. Took years and was anything but
easy.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "The Chief Instigator"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	21 Jun 2006 11:32:01 AM

stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:

On 19 Jun 2006 05:34:57 -0500, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

stoney <stoney@the.net> writes:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:54:28 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism

"The Preacher" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150322417.702541.158800@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

That's very sad. You're incapable of thinking outside your religion at
all? This sounds like brainwashing.

Generally from birth and he's probably in his mid 50's.

I'm thankful that I managed to avoid that indoctrination, as I'm starting to
approach my mid-50s...I'm better off being the irreverent little ***** I've
always been.

You picked better parents. I had to deprogram myself with nothing but
my own resources. No books, nothing. Took years and was anything but
easy.

I wouldn't say I picked them, but I'm not complaining. I was lucky enough to
have them, and they encouraged me to start learning at an early age - I
learned to read by being exposed to LD-50 doses of Walt Kelly's "Pogo". At
least you made it out...

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. TBA, 7:35
.

User: "Frank Mayhar"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	21 Jun 2006 12:36:04 PM

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:32:01 -0500, The Chief Instigator wrote:

Heh. You, too, eh? I read those things (the original paperbacks) until
they were literally falling to pieces.
--
Frank Mayhar frank@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	21 Jun 2006 02:49:00 PM

"Frank Mayhar" <frank@exit.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.21.17.36.04.855358@exit.com...

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:32:01 -0500, The Chief Instigator wrote:

Heh. You, too, eh? I read those things (the original paperbacks) until
they were literally falling to pieces.

Wow - Me too! I wish I still had that paperback. Can't tell you how many
times I read it. Found it in my parents' attic when I as a kid <sigh>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	21 Jun 2006 03:14:04 PM

In article <4ftlvjF1kpip9U1@individual.net> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:

"Frank Mayhar" <frank@exit.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.06.21.17.36.04.855358@exit.com...

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:32:01 -0500, The Chief Instigator wrote:

Heh. You, too, eh? I read those things (the original paperbacks) until
they were literally falling to pieces.

Wow - Me too! I wish I still had that paperback. Can't tell you how many
times I read it. Found it in my parents' attic when I as a kid <sigh>

Me three. Or four. And in fact I've now got a box of fifteen or twenty
of the original books, sold by someone who was clearing out
her collection.
Walt Kelly was simply the best.
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	15 Jun 2006 06:34:31 PM

On 14 Jun 2006 15:00:17 -0700, "The Preacher" <jredelfs@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1150322417.702541.158800@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

So, you feel the need to impose your mental disability on your
intellectual superiors?
I can't wait for you to get typhoid, and start spreading that around,
too.
--
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 08:15:47 PM

The Preacher wrote:

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

How can a God give you rights?
What *exactly* does that mean?
I am serious - I don't understand.
What if God exists and he *didnt* give us any rights - that's possible
isnt it?
If not what necessitates or compels God to give us rights?
How would you distinguish between an existence where God has given you
rights and an existence where God has chosen NOT to give you any
rights?
How would these two possible worlds differ?
People say "God has given us certain rights" - how do they know?
You can say "we have God given rights" - and yet peoples rights are
routinely taken away by men - how can men deprive me of something given
by a God?

I've just never heard an explanation for the existence of human rights
without the existence of God that I could understand, much less
believe.

I have never heard of a reason why the existence of a God means we have
rights.
I have merely heard it asserted many times without any attempt at lucid
explanation.
Do you want to give it a go?
Mark.
.

User: "Chris Johnson"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 10:27:44 PM

The Preacher wrote:

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

Humans have rights, as I and other posters have asserted, because we
have deigned to afford each other rights. To use Rousseau's
terminology, we enter into social contracts with one another. In
essence, we acquire the privelege of living in groups by restricting
our own freedom and granting the other members of the group rights.
This model is born out by the ability, that has been seen countless
time, of one group of humans to rescind those rights from another.
These rights are not intrinsic but clearly dependent upon all parties
to maintain. This is why governments (like the US Constitution) often
guarantee rights to their constituents, because we recognise that they
are indeed rescindable.

But just because I have been unable to think of such a reason
does not preclude that someone else might be able to come up with one.
I've just never heard an explanation for the existence of human rights
without the existence of God that I could understand, much less
believe. My guess is that atheists don't think much about rights at
all, but I could be wrong. I know so very little about atheists.

I certainly don't think about the origins of our rights very often, but
it doesn't seem so difficult to reason out. Even for a theist, it
should be easy to see that we grant and rescind rights from others all
the time. While it may not exclude a god as the granter of
"inalienable" rights, one might be inclined to wonder how mere humans
could revoke such rights from others.
.

User: "Chris H. Fleming"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 06:29:26 PM

The Preacher wrote:

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

That's not really an explaination. Instead of explaining where man got
rights from, you now have to explain where god got rights from. It's
just shifting the explaination onto the god concept. Same things
happens with "Where did the universe come from? God made it", "Where
did human life come from? God made him", and "Where does lightning come
from? Zeus makes it". And those last two have scientific answers. "God
did it" doesn't explain anything and possibly covers up a real
explaination like evolution and electricity.
That aside I also don't find it to be a satisfying answer. How come god
can just give out rights like candy? Where did god get the rights from?
Can god give a frog the rights of a person? If I have children can I
not give them any rights and use them as slaves?
.

User: "Gordon Hill"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 05:44:44 PM

The Preacher wrote:

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

Consider this:
The universe came into being, call it creation, but don't assign a
causitive source to the beginning. It's all energy, taking on many
forms, all special arrangements of one (or more) fundamental energy
forms (one name for these is strings, a theory).
These forms can be crudely classified as non-life--particles, atoms,
molecules, other(?)--and life--the definition of which is debatable,
but we know it when we see it.
Every form has a purpose--to be what it is--and does so very nicely,
thank you, excepting humans, who can choose their behavior.
Since other forms can not choose their rights are given--to exist as
they are--but as humans can choose their behavior, the need for right
behavior enters.
Or as many have suggested, humans are the only form created incomplete
with the task of completing the task to be chosen, every moment. That
what moral codes are about, right behavior.
The few religions and moral codes I know all have the Ethic of
Reciprosity--call it The Golden Rule if you prefer--at their core. The
human dilemma is whether to live a life of non-violence or violence
and if both, when.
If you have read this far expecting an answer, sorry. I see what I
think is the challenge and am working on living accordingly, but fall
short too often.
It doesn't matter to me whether someone calls themself theist, atheist,
agnostic or apathetic, but it does matter to me (and to them, I think)
how they and I behave.
Behavior! How I treat myself; how I treat you; how I treat the planet.
That's the ticket. Everything else is theory.
GH
.

User: "Richo"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 08:43:09 PM

Gordon Hill wrote:

Consider this:

The universe came into being, call it creation, but don't assign a
causitive source to the beginning. It's all energy, taking on many
forms, all special arrangements of one (or more) fundamental energy
forms (one name for these is strings, a theory).

These forms can be crudely classified as non-life--particles, atoms,
molecules, other(?)--and life--the definition of which is debatable,
but we know it when we see it.

Every form has a purpose--to be what it is--and does so very nicely,
thank you, excepting humans, who can choose their behavior.

Since other forms can not choose their rights are given--to exist as
they are--but as humans can choose their behavior, the need for right
behavior enters.

Or as many have suggested, humans are the only form created incomplete
with the task of completing the task to be chosen, every moment. That
what moral codes are about, right behavior.

The few religions and moral codes I know all have the Ethic of
Reciprosity--call it The Golden Rule if you prefer--at their core. The
human dilemma is whether to live a life of non-violence or violence
and if both, when.

If you have read this far expecting an answer, sorry. I see what I
think is the challenge and am working on living accordingly, but fall
short too often.

It doesn't matter to me whether someone calls themself theist, atheist,
agnostic or apathetic, but it does matter to me (and to them, I think)
how they and I behave.

Behavior! How I treat myself; how I treat you; how I treat the planet.
That's the ticket. Everything else is theory.

GH

Well said! Good post.
Mark.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	18 Jun 2006 11:14:50 PM

On 14 Jun 2006 15:44:44 -0700, "Gordon Hill" <gordon@explainer.com>
wrote in alt.atheism

The Preacher wrote:

Jim07D6 wrote:

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> said:

If there is no God, do men have rights?

If people have rights, it is necessarily independent of the existence
of any god.

Whatever 'right behaviour' is. One is always working with incomplete
information and has no information about what the
ramifications/reprecussions will be.

Or as many have suggested, humans are the only form created incomplete
with the task of completing the task to be chosen, every moment. That
what moral codes are about, right behavior.

And such is dependant upon the situation(s) and the available option(s).

The few religions and moral codes I know all have the Ethic of
Reciprosity--call it The Golden Rule if you prefer--at their core. The
human dilemma is whether to live a life of non-violence or violence
and if both, when.

The Golden Rule is fatally flawed. The Silver Rule is far superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_rule
Silver rule
Related to the ethical principle of the golden rule, the silver rule
states "Treat others in the way that they wish to be treated."
Because of cultural and personal differences, the silver rule is
sometimes more useful in practice than the golden rule. However, because
it requires intimate knowledge of the subject it is also much more
difficult to successfully implement.
For example, someone acting in accordance with the golden rule might use
a very forceful handshake because he himself likes firm handshakes.
Someone acting in accordance with the silver rule would use a forceful
handshake only if he believes that the person on the receiving end would
prefer a firm handshake.
The ideals of chivalry are related to the silver rule, especially
insomuch as they relate to the behavior of men toward women.
/end quote

If you have read this far expecting an answer, sorry. I see what I
think is the challenge and am working on living accordingly, but fall
short too often.

It doesn't matter to me whether someone calls themself theist, atheist,
agnostic or apathetic, but it does matter to me (and to them, I think)
how they and I behave.

Exactly.

Behavior! How I treat myself; how I treat you; how I treat the planet.
That's the ticket. Everything else is theory.

GH

--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "Startlemyerfieldson"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 12:35:41 PM

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150290077.445859.72840@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I don't know a lot about atheism, so I joined this group to learn more
about it.

I have read all of your conversations in this thread to date/time.
You are not here to learn, you came here to berate.
You might not know/perceive/understand it, but the berating going on
is yours.
Have a nice day.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 11:28:59 AM

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150290077.445859.72840@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Atheists are essentially people who haven't bought into to the whole
Jesus/God 'thing' to begin with, or else used their brains to figure out
that they had been 'brainwashed'/indoctrinated by the 'Church' at a very
vulnerable age but have had enough emotional strength and intellectual
integrity to see the whole Jesus/God 'thing' for what it truly is -- a
'lie', with a capital 'L'.
But atheists have been artificially 'divided' by 'God who knows *who* (Hah,
hah ... Wasn't that funny? I used the word 'God' ... oh, never mind.) into
something called 'Strong' atheists who are said to maintain that there is NO
'God', and 'weak' atheists who allegedly can't bring themselves to say that
there is NO 'God'. (Or something like that.) Did I use the word 'artificial'
here. An atheist, as another member has pointed out, 'believes ', or should
I say 'disbelieves' in Santa Claus. Do*you* believe that Santa Claus exists?
(And if someone tries posting 'proof' that Santa Claus truly exists, you
will get a taste of what we atheists are up against.)
A very important point to take in here: It was a 'theist' sometime in our
distant past that asserted that 'God' exists. *That* goof-ball and *every*
subsequent theist ever since has 'believed' this to be true, but have
*never* presented any 'real' proof to back up their ridiculous claim. As it
stands to date, all those brainwashed brainwashers have been able to dredge
up as 'proof' for the existence of 'God' -- from which they have somehow
extrapolated one Jesus of Nazareth -- an ancient Jew who is said to have
walked on water, raised people from the dead, was a product of a 'virgin
birth', could restore and 'heal' severed ears, was sent *only* to 'redeem'
the Jews of this world, and was *truly* 'human; and created the universe --
is 'faith in the bible, 'irreducible complexity', and an aggressive
challenge to the atheist community to prove that 'God' *doesn't* exist.
That's it! Pretty pathetic, eh'?
One more important note: It is the theist that came up with the
assertion/claim that 'God' exists. You would think they had freight-car
loads worth of 'proof' to back them up. *Especially* considering the way
they try to beat everyone into submission with their 'believe in God'
propoganda. But, they don't. Remember that *they* are the ones on 'offense'
here. We atheists are merely playing 'defense'. It is time for them to quit
banging their drum -- to 'put up or shut up'. They've got nothing, and I
mean *nothing* to back up their claims. They only have a veritable 'army' of
hood-winked, irrational 'religion' addicts who mindlessly follow and embrace
liars and their lies to show for themselves. And there's nothing we atheists
can do about it. Those people simply *want* to believe the hooey they've
been force-fed.

What about humanism? Is humanism a form of atheism?

I can't speak for the humanist community, but I do know that they embrace
science in place of religion, that huminism is *not* a religion, and have
adopted common-sense philosophical (and not 'theological') principles in
their approach to life. So I would think they lie under the atheist/agnostic
umbrella. (Now watch me catch holy hell for being 'wrong' -- if I *am*
wrong.)

How about Marxism? Is Marxism a kind of atheism distinct from other
kinds?

Marxism is simply a political and economic *philosophy*. It really has
nothing to do with 'religion'. However, Karl Marx *was* an atheist. And his
famous (and accurate) quote about religion being the 'opiate of the masses'
has led to a good amount of confusion about his 'philosophy'.

If a person were going to categorize and classify atheists according to
their various beliefs, what kind of taxonomy would be best, and based
upon what criteria?

'Disbelief', and nothing more for starters. Of course we atheists constantly
attack the ridiculous claims of the religionists for their 'non-proof' for
the existence of their 'God'. But that's all it is -- 'disbelief' in their
claims and disbelief in the 'supernatural' and any form of 'deity'.

Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion.

Have you ever heard the expression, 'Money is his God'? Is accumulating
wealth ala Jack Abramoff, vice-president Cheney, Bill Frist, and certain
former Tyco execs, a 'religion'? Hardly. It is a 'tag' theists would just
*love* to pin on us atheists. But in point of fact, the only time the terms
'atheist' or 'atheism' is come up in religious discussion is to simply
identify that person or mental state of disbelief that is in opposition to
'theism'. That hardly constitutes a 'religion' -- which, by the by, involves
the service, worship and adoration of 'God' and the supernatural. Does
atheism sound like a 'religion' to *you*?
Are atheists in general hostile

to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?

I can say with*certainty* that trying to deceitfully portray atheism as a
'religion' *is* particularly offensive considering the fact that the theists
who have gone to extraordinary lengths to 'misrepresent' atheism and
atheists *know* that what they are attempting to do is unethical and nothing
more than willful deception. But that's par for the course for these
hypocrites who feel that the ends justify the means - no matter how
despicable the 'means'.

If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?

Well I hope I have demonstrated to you that atheism is *not* a religion. You
*did* understand the gist of what I've conveyed here, have you not?
(As an aside: Do you *actually* think that we atheists have a book we call
'scripture'? If so, I suggest you leave that cave you live in that is buried
2 miles underground and learn to live a little. Whew! That's a good one!)

Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?

Agnostics allow that eensy, teensy, weensy bit of wiggle-room that deity
*may* possibly exist.

How about the belief in an immaterial God? Some have suggested that a
belief in an immaterial God is essentially atheism because a belief
that there is no God is very similar to a belief in a God that is
nothing, or in other words, immaterial. This idea is highly offensive
to many religious people. Is it offensive to atheists too?

Why should it be? There is as much proof for an 'immaterial God' as there is
for a 'material' one. And that amounts to ... uh, ... let me think now ...
hang on for a second ... ummmmm ... (I'm whisting to myself right now ...
hang on.) ....... just a little bit .... ahhhh ...*NONE*!!!

Nope. Deism is the belief that a deity created the universe and mankind, but
then left the universe and its inhabitants to fend for themselves. In other
words, belief in an immaterial 'God'.

If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion

No. No. NO. There is no 'hence a religion' going on here, partner. What's
the old saying? 'You can't turn a cow's ear into a silk purse? Atheism = no
religion. Period.
in the

broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking?

Well I know this is going to absolutely *shock* you, but atheism isn't a
religion. And even more shocking is the fact that it never was and never
will *be* one.
How about in the rest of the world?

Reference lines 203, 204, and 205 to get your answer. (Don't bother
counting. I just picked the numbers off the top of my head. I think you
catch my 'drift'.

The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. If there is no God, do men have rights?

Why of course NOT! Whataya whataya? How silly can you get. How in the world
could men *possibly* have *any* rights without the supernatural intervention
of his Holiness, his Magnificense, his Stupendous-ness, his
Almighty-ness-nes, the biggest of the big Kahunas ... that's right ... you
know him and you love him ... Oh yes you do ... that's rightie right ...
'Bozo, the Supernatural Clown!!! Or was that 'God'? I forget. There's so
many supernatural deities floatin' around, its hard to keep track of them.
Anyway, does that answer your question?
And if so,

where do they come from?

I know this is going to cause you to fall back in your chair and immediately
pour five 1.5 liter bottles of Jack Daniel's down your atheist-leaning
throat, but if truth be known, they were devised and bestowed upon
themselves *and* all of those magnificent people (except for the slaves)
that made our country what it is ... wait a minute ... I was about to write
the word 'today'. But that would not be 'appropriate' considering the
present administration, so I'm going to change the wording to, what it *use*
to be in the not-too-distant past'. It was some gifted human beings who gave
us our 'rights', not some imaginary deity.

Perhaps some of these are stupid questions. If so, by what standard of
judgement are they considered stupid?

Well, I, for one, would consider it 'stupid' to ask questions that *seem* to
come from a theist who *knows* he's being deceiftul to a degree, and aimed
at atheists whose butt he *knows* they would kick in *any* sort of
meaningful theological debate in a New York minute. If I were you, I would
go to another newsgroup or forum and ask the theists what sort of
irrefutable proof do they have 'proving' the existence of 'God'. The onus is
on them to prove an assertion that started on their side, not ours. Don't
you think?
What criteria is used? If I

could get intelligent answers to even a few of these questions, I would
know a great deal more about atheism than I do now. I am really very
uninformed on the topic. And I would like to know more.

You *do* know that your post is extremely suspicious, do you not? But if you
*are* sincere, let me be the first to apologize for giving you a 'hard
time'. We all want to learn the 'truth' about things relating to our
existence. And in that light, one has to say that there is no such thing as
a 'stupid' question.
Greywolf
.

User: "Denis Loubet"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 02:11:40 PM

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150290077.445859.72840@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I don't know a lot about atheism, so I joined this group to learn more
about it.

Learning about atheism mostly consists of discarding 2000 years of
uninterrupted religious slander.

Are there different kinds of atheism? I mean, are there different
denominations or sects within atheism as there are within the formal
religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc?

Nothing formal. There's your weak -- or what I prefer to call default --
atheists who simply lack a belief in any gods. Then there's your strong
atheists who take it a step further and say there is no god.
Note that the default atheist is only making a claim about his state of
belief concerning gods, and the strong atheist is making a claim about the
state of the universe.
Note also that both strong and default atheists lack a belief in gods, which
makes strong atheism a subset of default atheism.
Those are the two main catagories.

What about humanism? Is humanism a form of atheism?

No. Some humanists are atheists.

How about Marxism? Is Marxism a kind of atheism distinct from other
kinds?

No. As already explained, it's an economic system.

If a person were going to categorize and classify atheists according to
their various beliefs, what kind of taxonomy would be best, and based
upon what criteria?

There is no criteria other than not having a belief in gods. That's it.

Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion. Are atheists in general hostile
to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?

Philosophically I abhore the idea. It is the intellectual equivalent of
saying that not playing baseball is a sport, which is insane.
Unfortunately, within the legal system in the US, there arise practical
reasons for being catagorized as a religion. Some atheist groups have taken
advantage of this.

If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?

No prophets. No scripture. No dogma.
There are people who speak eloquently about atheism, but being considered a
prophet would be self contradictory.

Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?

You'll have to ask agnostics what they are, I can't figure it out.
As far as I can tell, belief is a binary proposition. You believe or you
don't. For instance, if you almost believe something, that means you don't
believe it.
Since default atheism is a description of one's state of belief about gods,
it's a yes or no situation. So, when faced with the question "Do you believe
in any gods?" the answer is a yes or a no.
So how does an agnostic answer the question? If he says yes, he's a theist.
If he says no, he's an atheist. If he says I don't know -- which many of
them do -- he is basically saying that he does not know his own state of
belief concerning gods. That doesn't make sense to me. And besides, if he
doesn't know, then he didn't say yes, and that's the equivelant of saying no
as far as binary propositions go.

If you believe in a god, you are not an atheist.

No.

If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion in the
broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking? How about in the rest of the world?

I don't know.
Please remember my analogy comparing "atheism being a religion" to "not
playing baseball being a sport" before you continue to entertain the idea
that atheism might be a religion.

The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. If there is no God, do men have rights? And if so,
where do they come from?

We determine them.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.

User: "AlanS"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	15 Jun 2006 07:18:40 AM

"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know a lot about atheism, so I joined this group to learn more
about it.

GIYF.
.

User: "bob young"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 11:59:01 PM

"John W. Redelfs" wrote:

I don't know a lot about atheism, so I joined this group to learn more
about it.

Are there different kinds of atheism? I mean, are there different
denominations or sects

ROFL - 'sects' are an exclusive religionist short falling

within atheism as there are within the formal
religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc?

What about humanism? Is humanism a form of atheism?

Yes of course

How about Marxism? Is Marxism a kind of atheism distinct from other
kinds?

No. marxism was a dictatorship and as such it feared all kinds of
organized groups. Since religions are simply clubs of like minded people
who use an imaginary god as 'chairman' they banned religions to protect
their overall hold on power.

If a person were going to categorize and classify atheists according to
their various beliefs, what kind of taxonomy would be best, and based
upon what criteria?

GROAN - atheists do not have beliefs, well not true I suppose they believe
that folks groveling to imaginary gods are a little weak in the head,
apart from that - no beliefs

Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion. Are atheists in general hostile
to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?

It is not a form of religion - Emmett explains better than I, take careful
note of his last line:
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious
mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is
not an old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is
not, and never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is
magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in
a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]

If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?

G R O A N

Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?

How about the belief in an immaterial God? Some have suggested that a
belief in an immaterial God is essentially atheism because a belief
that there is no God is very similar to a belief in a God that is
nothing, or in other words, immaterial. This idea is highly offensive
to many religious people. Is it offensive to atheists too?

ALL GODS ARE IMAGINARY - CALL THIS WHAT YOU LIKE - IT IS IMMATERIAL !

What about Deists? During the 18th century Deism was the religion of
many of our Founding Fathers, and they were considered to be virtual
atheists because for the most part they had rejected the formal,
denominational Protestantism of the day. Is Deism a form of atheism?

If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion in the
broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking? How about in the rest of the world?

The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. If there is no God, do men have rights? And if so,
where do they come from?

Perhaps some of these are stupid questions.

Yes some definite are, i hope i have helped you though

If so, by what standard of
judgement are they considered stupid? What criteria is used? If I
could get intelligent answers to even a few of these questions, I would
know a great deal more about atheism than I do now. I am really very
uninformed on the topic. And I would like to know more.

I don't think so; I think you have your tongue in your cheek
nice try.
bob
humanist Brit.
"... this is a hard world to be ludicrous in, with so many human beings so
reluctant to laugh, so incapable of thought, so eager to believe and snarl
and hate. So many people wanted to believe me!
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I
consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!"
[Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Mother Night]
.

User: "Bill M"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 02:47:15 PM

Atheism is NOT a sect, religion or belief system. It just NOT believing any
REAL gods exist.
"John W. Redelfs" <jredelfs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150290077.445859.72840@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I don't know a lot about atheism, so I joined this group to learn more
about it.

Are there different kinds of atheism? I mean, are there different
denominations or sects within atheism as there are within the formal
religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc?

What about humanism? Is humanism a form of atheism?

How about Marxism? Is Marxism a kind of atheism distinct from other
kinds?

If a person were going to categorize and classify atheists according to
their various beliefs, what kind of taxonomy would be best, and based
upon what criteria?

Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion. Are atheists in general hostile
to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?

If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?

Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?

How about the belief in an immaterial God? Some have suggested that a
belief in an immaterial God is essentially atheism because a belief
that there is no God is very similar to a belief in a God that is
nothing, or in other words, immaterial. This idea is highly offensive
to many religious people. Is it offensive to atheists too?

What about Deists? During the 18th century Deism was the religion of
many of our Founding Fathers, and they were considered to be virtual
atheists because for the most part they had rejected the formal,
denominational Protestantism of the day. Is Deism a form of atheism?

If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion in the
broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking? How about in the rest of the world?

The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. If there is no God, do men have rights? And if so,
where do they come from?

Perhaps some of these are stupid questions. If so, by what standard of
judgement are they considered stupid? What criteria is used? If I
could get intelligent answers to even a few of these questions, I would
know a great deal more about atheism than I do now. I am really very
uninformed on the topic. And I would like to know more.

User: "Lars Eighner"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 09:29:35 AM

In our last episode,
<1150290077.445859.72840@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented John W. Redelfs
broadcast on alt.atheism:

I don't know a lot about atheism, so I joined this group to learn more
about it.
Are there different kinds of atheism?

All atheism means is not having a belief in (a) god(s).

I mean, are there different denominations or sects within atheism as there
are within the formal religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism,
etc?

No, although some Buddhists are atheists.

What about humanism? Is humanism a form of atheism?

No. Some atheists are humanists. Some humanists are atheists.

How about Marxism? Is Marxism a kind of atheism distinct from other
kinds?

Marxism is a combination of political and economic theories. Marxism is not
a kind of atheism. There is no part of Marxism that is really incompatible
with belief in (a) god(s). That's for pretty much the same reason that
people with various theories of sub-atomic particles can be Marxists in
spite of their different view of physics: there just isn't much about the
theories matter that cover the same territory as Marxism.

If a person were going to categorize and classify atheists according to
their various beliefs, what kind of taxonomy would be best, and based
upon what criteria?

There are many schemes which do not really make much sense. One divides
atheists into weak and strong atheist. Weak atheists meet the minimum
requirement: they don't have a belief in (a) god(s). Strong atheist meet
that criterion, but in addition believe that there are no gods. The flaw in
this arrangement is that some gods, such as the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god,
can rather easily be disproved, but people have invented other gods that are
not actually impossible, so the difference between strong and weak atheism
often turns on the definition of god(s).

Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion. Are atheists in general hostile
to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?

Atheism is not a belief system and more than a tropical storm is a drought
system. Atheism is the absence of a particular kind of belief. So saying
atheism is a belief system is something like saying a hole is a kind of
mountain.

If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?

If you think of atheism as a religion you do not know what you are thinking
about.

Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?

Since atheism is not a belief, it is a fortiori a rational or irrational
belief. I suspect you are simply a troll.
The question is: do you believe in one or more gods? If the answer to that
is not "yes," then you are an atheist. If you say "I don't have enough
evidence," you may call yourself an agnostic, but so long as your answer to
the question is not "yes," you are an atheist.

Well, I have recently discovered that I am not only an atheist, but a
pragmatist as well. As a pragmastist, and no doubt many atheists are
*not* pragmatists, my rule is "There is no difference if it makes no
difference." If there is no way to distinguish a universe without a god
from a universe with an "immaterial god" - whatever that might be -
then atheism and belief in an "immaterial god" are the same thing.

Again, there isn't a difference if it doesn't make a difference. The
deist god has no interest in human kind, doesn't hear prayers, certainly
doesn't answer any prayers, maintains neither a heaven nor a hell, has no
commandments for human beings, doesn't intercede in the operation of the
universe by natural law. In other words, there is no way to tell the
difference between a universe without a god and a universe created by the
Deist god, so atheism and deism come to the same thing.

If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion in the
broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking? How about in the rest of the world?

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. You begin with a false premise
"atheism is a belief system," and elementry logic should show you that
anything follows from a false premise.

The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.

That is a lie and you are a troll.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner, ULC

http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of God� -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
First Church of Electro-Baptism ***Atheist #1965*** One Short Circuit to Jesus
"I thank heaven for a man like Adolf Hitler" --Frank Buchman, U.S. evangelist
.

User: "The Preacher"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 11:36:00 AM

Lars Eighner wrote:

Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion. Are atheists in general hostile
to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?

Quite a few have given me this answer, and it makes sense to me. I
accept it. This is perhaps the most important thing I have learned
about atheism since I started this thread.

If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?

If you think of atheism as a religion you do not know what you are thinking
about.

I already knew that when I started this thread. That is why I have
been asking these questions. I admitted up front that I did not know
what an atheist was.

Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?

Since atheism is not a belief, it is a fortiori a rational or irrational
belief. I suspect you are simply a troll.

As I have admitted already, I may in fact be a troll depending on your
definition. However, I am enormously enjoying this discussion. And I
have learned quite a lot from it. While I am not an atheist myself, I
have quite a lot of respect for their position. It seems far more
honest to me than the position taken by many religious people who claim
to believe things that are almost perfectly nonsensical and
self-contradictory. If 2+2=4, then it cannnot possibly equal 5. Yet
many religious people seem to believe such nonsense. The
inconsistencies in their own position do not seem to bother them at
all.

The question is: do you believe in one or more gods? If the answer to that
is not "yes," then you are an atheist. If you say "I don't have enough
evidence," you may call yourself an agnostic, but so long as your answer to
the question is not "yes," you are an atheist.

I agree, but you are the first person I have ever met who feels the
same way about this. I picked up the idea in 1992 when I read
something by one of the early Mormon prophets named Orson Pratt who
claimed this to be the case and used it as an argument against all
traditional religion. It is an idea that is highly offensive to all
the Mormons I know on the Internet today, however. I happen to agree
with you and Pratt on this.

If your description of Deism is correct, I would agree with you on this
too. However, if I recall what I learned about the Deism of the US
Founding Fathers in high school back in the early Sixties, the Deists
believed that there was a system of punishments and rewards in the next
life. They just didn't have any believe beyond that as to the
specifics of that system of punishments and rewards or what a person
had to do to avoid the one and receive the other. However, I may not
have been taught correctly about Deism. Or I may not be remembering
correctly what I was taught. I believe I learned it in a high school
civics class that started out with a discussion of the Founding Fathers
and the philosophical roots of our founding documents.

If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion in the
broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking? How about in the rest of the world?

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. You begin with a false premise
"atheism is a belief system," and elementry logic should show you that
anything follows from a false premise.

LOL! I love your sense of humor. I began with a premise. I did not
realize that it was false until I started reading this thread. As I
stated when I started out, I did not know very much about atheism. I
feel that I know quite a lot more now.

The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.

That is a lie and you are a troll.

What is the lie, that our Founders considered this to be so, or that it
is so? I'm pretty sure they thought this to be so. It is written
right into our Declaration of Independence. It may be a lie, but I
certainly have not knowingly lied by stating what I thought was their
belief.
.

User: "Chris H. Fleming"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 12:29:21 PM

The Preacher wrote:

Lars Eighner wrote:

Some have suggested that inasmuch as atheism is a belief system, that
it is essentially a form of religion. Are atheists in general hostile
to such an idea, or do they acknowledge this?

Quite a few have given me this answer, and it makes sense to me. I
accept it. This is perhaps the most important thing I have learned
about atheism since I started this thread.

If we think of atheism as a religion, who are its prophets, and what
are its scripture?

If you think of atheism as a religion you do not know what you are thinking
about.

I already knew that when I started this thread. That is why I have
been asking these questions. I admitted up front that I did not know
what an atheist was.

Are agnostics essentially atheists who do not want to have to defend an
irrational belief?

Since atheism is not a belief, it is a fortiori a rational or irrational
belief. I suspect you are simply a troll.

On the nonpragmatic side, many "philosophy of religion" people do stuff
similar to this. Unlike the regular pragmatic, they then argue that
it's ok to believe god because it's just a framework for understanding
the universe, and all frameworks are equally valid. (Disclaimer: I
can't stand philosophy of religion, I think it's 99% tripe inanity)

Deism is a funny thing. It is context dependent. Deism was a product of
the Enlightenment Era. The whole point of Deism is to strip away
irrational superstition from religious belief. You have to take into
consideration what was reasonable at the time.
You are right, many Deists of that time did believe in a Judgement. But
knowing what we know about the brain today, an afterlife is a much less
reasonable proposition. Today, an afterlife is more of a superstition
than it was. A Deist today would likely not have a typical afterlife
belief if any at all. Back then Deism meant snakes don't talk and god
can't make them talk.
It is also confusing because Deism isn't very popular today. People who
were Deists then would have a good chance of just being regular
skeptics and nonbelievers today. It's hard to project Deist beliefs in
the context of today's scientific knowledge. A best guess would be to
ask a Unitarian Universalist, but their members also include
monotheists, agnostics, and atheists.

If we think of atheism as a belief system and hence a religion in the
broadest sense of that word, is it a religion that is growing in the
USA or shrinking? How about in the rest of the world?

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. You begin with a false premise
"atheism is a belief system," and elementry logic should show you that
anything follows from a false premise.

The men who drafted our Declaration of Independence considered our
Creator as the author of our "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.

That is a lie and you are a troll.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 12:34:00 PM

The Preacher wrote:

There are no rights. Religion confers none on anybody.
Rome had its religions and gave us a savage slave society.
Islam offered few rights to any over its long and savage
career. Christianity allowed us to be serfs for centuries.
The problem with having no recognized rights is you
have no rights. So we come up with this concept, rights,
and insist on basic rights.

Islam and Christianity for centuroes did not recognize
man has right of religious freedom, today in many Islamic
countries, to openly leave Islam is a crime, you can be
executed for.
Rights are what the majority of a society define them as
and are willing to fight for.
They are a legal fiction, but an important one.
If all men were intelligent, thoughtful and
not tied to things like religions, we would have
less need for that fiction. So we make up that fiction
and insist of it because so many unthinking people
would not support these rights unless taught to do
so by the wiser people around them.
We see GOP morons in Washington all too willing
to destroy constitutional rights we have had for
200 years.
The problem with this concept is that you can make a
perverted sense of rights. Islamic civilization is
an example. Having been brought up as a muslim,
you have no right to say "I no longer care to be a muslim".

--

"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "The Preacher"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	14 Jun 2006 07:00:40 PM

wbarwell wrote:

We see GOP morons in Washington all too willing
to destroy constitutional rights we have had for
200 years.

I feel exactly as you seem to feel about the GOP morons in Washington
who are waging a war in Irag to promote freedom and democracy in the
Middle East while doing their very best to destroy them here at home.
The one thing that both Democrats and Republicans seem to be agreed
upon once they get into office is the destruction of the rights
guaranteed to all Americans in the Bill of Rights. They don't focus on
destroying the same rights, but they both try to destroy them. And as
I understand rights, it is impossible to destroy one without
threatening all of the others. All rights are by definition
inseparable connected. A threat to one of them is a threat to all of
them.
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: The Different Kinds of Atheism	15 Jun 2006 06:01:48 AM

The Preacher wrote:

wbarwell wrote:

We see GOP morons in Washington all too willing
to destroy constitutional rights we have had for
200 years.