| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ernobe" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 12:04:07 AM |
| Object: |
What Burden of Proof? |
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
11 Jan 2005 07:43:35 AM |
|
|
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote
The connection between what theism is and
what it means to be a theist is made explicit
by religion. The connection, therefore,
between what atheism is and what it means
to be an atheist cannot be made explicit
without the implication of irreligion.
Nonsense.
You're insisting on viewing everything in terms
of religion.
But even that's not right. You're insisting on viewing
everything in terms of yourself.
Someone who subscribes to a religion grants religion
a significance that others do not, in the same way that
a 'New Ager' who believes in alien visitations grants
aliens a significance in their lives that others do not.
The mistake here is in assuming that the religion/aliens
weigh as much on others as they do for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
11 Jan 2005 08:35:35 AM |
|
|
JTEM <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s-adnZ6hFPDUS37cRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote
The connection between what theism is and
what it means to be a theist is made explicit
by religion. The connection, therefore,
between what atheism is and what it means
to be an atheist cannot be made explicit
without the implication of irreligion.
Nonsense.
You're insisting on viewing everything in terms
of religion.
But even that's not right. You're insisting on viewing
everything in terms of yourself.
Someone who subscribes to a religion grants religion
a significance that others do not, in the same way that
a 'New Ager' who believes in alien visitations grants
aliens a significance in their lives that others do not.
The mistake here is in assuming that the religion/aliens
weigh as much on others as they do for yourself.
Great response! LOL loved it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
11 Jan 2005 12:07:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:35:35 GMT, "Little Me"
<soul.lover@ntlworld.com> wrote:
JTEM <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s-adnZ6hFPDUS37cRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote
The connection between what theism is and
what it means to be a theist is made explicit
by religion. The connection, therefore,
between what atheism is and what it means
to be an atheist cannot be made explicit
without the implication of irreligion.
Nonsense.
You're insisting on viewing everything in terms
of religion.
But even that's not right. You're insisting on viewing
everything in terms of yourself.
Someone who subscribes to a religion grants religion
a significance that others do not, in the same way that
a 'New Ager' who believes in alien visitations grants
aliens a significance in their lives that others do not.
The mistake here is in assuming that the religion/aliens
weigh as much on others as they do for yourself.
Great response! LOL loved it!
Yes I agree. This was an excellent post which got right
to the heart of the problem. These people seem so fixated
with their notion of a god that is stuck inside their heads
that they cannot possibly understand that is only in
their heads and not everybody elses. Because they think
about this god thing all the time they must think we do.
I guess to them their posts are deadly earnest and they
have this desparate need to get everybody in line.
They probably have prayer meetings to pray for our
'souls' and elect somebody to 'show us the way'. I
get the distinct impression that they only have to post
their stuff and we will immediately rush to the nearest
church.
To me it is just a bit of fun, half an hours debate. They
come across so naive in their thinking
When I finish with posts here the entire concept goes
out of my head and I get on with life. Whilst for these folk
they think this god of theirs is with them all the time.This afternoon
I spent working with my Trainz train simulator laying high speed
track on a route I am building. There was no gods peering
round corners no thoughts of a god coming in to my head.
There it is a world entirely without religion and you won't find a
single church building on any of my routes. The odd pub maybe.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
11 Jan 2005 12:20:24 PM |
|
|
The connection between what theism is and
what it means to be a theist is made explicit
by religion. The connection, therefore,
between what atheism is and what it means
to be an atheist cannot be made explicit
without the implication of irreligion.
Nonsense.
You're insisting on viewing everything in terms
of religion.
But even that's not right. You're insisting on viewing
everything in terms of yourself.
Someone who subscribes to a religion grants religion
a significance that others do not, in the same way that
a 'New Ager' who believes in alien visitations grants
aliens a significance in their lives that others do not.
The mistake here is in assuming that the religion/aliens
weigh as much on others as they do for yourself.
Great response! LOL loved it!
Yes I agree. This was an excellent post which got right
to the heart of the problem. These people seem so fixated
with their notion of a god that is stuck inside their heads
that they cannot possibly understand that is only in
their heads and not everybody elses. Because they think
about this god thing all the time they must think we do.
I guess to them their posts are deadly earnest and they
have this desparate need to get everybody in line.
They probably have prayer meetings to pray for our
'souls' and elect somebody to 'show us the way'. I
get the distinct impression that they only have to post
their stuff and we will immediately rush to the nearest
church.
To me it is just a bit of fun, half an hours debate. They
come across so naive in their thinking
When I finish with posts here the entire concept goes
out of my head and I get on with life. Whilst for these folk
they think this god of theirs is with them all the time.This afternoon
I spent working with my Trainz train simulator laying high speed
track on a route I am building. There was no gods peering
round corners no thoughts of a god coming in to my head.
There it is a world entirely without religion and you won't find a
single church building on any of my routes. The odd pub maybe.
--
Totally LOL They want to justify their own belief by trying to force other
people to believe it too.
What they just dont get is, they are f**k-wits who will only ever get
other f**k-wits to do it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 12:18:37 AM |
|
|
"ernobe" <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34ek6mF48fg4dU1@individual.net...
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is
made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is
and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the
implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that
Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that
religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus
rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas
are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion,
which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he
is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the
atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism
is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an
atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of
proof.
Boy, you're sure twisting and turning to say something, but I don't know
what it is.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 07:37:06 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
Boy, you're sure twisting and turning to say something, but I don't know
what it is.
....twisting and turning to *try to* say something, maybe.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 05:09:19 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion.
Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods
Religion is the worshipping of a god along with all the
practises and beliefs associated with the god.
Two separate things.
Of course if you knew there was a god, had evidence of the existence
of the god you would no longer need to believe so you would no
longer be theist and yet have a religion.
The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion.
Clearly if you do not believe in the existence of gods religion would
be irrelevant. You cannot be religious concerning a non existent god.
The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral.
irreligious
neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or
practices
True religions exist to worship gods but what has religion got
to do with morals which is an entirely separate thing? Whilst
it is true religion claims to be the repository of morals that is
false so it is not correct to insult atheist by calling them immoral
It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists.
The lack of belief in the existence of gods is a ploy?
Sorry are you trying to argue that we really do believe gods exist
but are merely pretending they don't to confuse the religious. Why
would we do that? This makes no sense along with the rest of your
paragraph long sentence.
Wierd
This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God.
So what is the true purpose of the religion of god? We know the
baleful trinity exists but why? From what I have observed it was
created as a means of control. Would be Kings claim their authorities
to be from a god. Terms like 'Lord' and 'obey' and 'fear' are often
used in religious contexts indeed recent research shows that the OT
was cobbled together from separate tribal religions to create a kind
of super religion for all the Israelites controlled from Jerusalem
under one unifiying King and it was the spin to justify the Kings
authority. . Religion has also be created to distinquish one tribal or
racial group from another and justify conquest. Thus we have the
baleful trinity. At first the god of Israel was created to justify the
Israelite land grabs in what is now Palestine with the claim they
were specially choosen. The arabs stole this god and gave it a new
name and religion to justify their conquest like wise the Christian
religion.
That is the true purpose of religion, the propoganda to justify
control and the conquest of Middle East scarce resources. A
battle that goes on still today and which has spread eastwards
and westwards. Thus we have conflict in the sub continent between
Muslims on the one hand and the native Hindu and Sikh religion
which has resulted in considerable bloodshed down the centuries
and still continues in hatred.
In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
Again a sentence that does not make much sense. As an atheist
I have no beliefs regarding gods. Any and all so called gods. If
others wish to believe there are gods that's no business of . If they
wish to claim their gods actually exists and convince me then let them
show me how they know if they wish me to accept such gods.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 09:20:07 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
You do not believe in the Tooth Fairy. This makes you too immoral for me to talk
to you any further.
---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 08:58:50 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
You're very good at taking the long route to say absolutely nothing.
Have you ever thought of going into politics? <G>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: aa TQOTM nomination (was: Re: What Burden of Proof?) |
10 Jan 2005 12:55:32 AM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
A bit long, but for sheer incoherence, this surpasses just about
anything I've seen in a long time. I'm still wondering how he got out
of my killfile, but seconds, folks?
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM nomination (was: Re: What Burden of Proof?) |
10 Jan 2005 03:40:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:55:32 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
A bit long, but for sheer incoherence, this surpasses just about
anything I've seen in a long time. I'm still wondering how he got out
of my killfile, but seconds, folks?
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
Heh heh heh, it's all a insideous plot....
Seconded.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM nomination (was: Re: What Burden of Proof?) |
13 Jan 2005 05:00:34 AM |
|
|
In article <41f1f586.247359015@news-west.newscene.com>,
(Kate ) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:55:32 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
A bit long, but for sheer incoherence, this surpasses just about
anything I've seen in a long time. I'm still wondering how he got out
of my killfile, but seconds, folks?
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is
made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is
and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the
implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that
Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus
rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas
are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion,
which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he
is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the
atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of
proof.
Heh heh heh, it's all a insideous plot....
Seconded.
Recorded.
LOL
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM nomination (was: Re: What Burden of Proof?) |
10 Jan 2005 06:54:12 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
A bit long, but for sheer incoherence, this surpasses just about
anything I've seen in a long time. I'm still wondering how he got out
of my killfile, but seconds, folks?
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
My head is starting to throb from reading it.
I may print this out and give copies to the
Jehovah people when they stop again...
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Mike Smith | aa #1164 | Founder of SMASH
__________________________________________
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
"Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth."
- Psalms 58:6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry F. Leopold" |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM nomination (was: Re: What Burden of Proof?) |
11 Jan 2005 12:58:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:54:12 -0600, Mike Smith wrote
(in article <tq86u0podngg6hhlm9vnff2opqsu9frsgu@4ax.com>):
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
A bit long, but for sheer incoherence, this surpasses just about
anything I've seen in a long time. I'm still wondering how he got out
of my killfile, but seconds, folks?
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is
made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is
and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the
implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that
Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that
religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus
rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas
are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion,
which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he
is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the
atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of
proof.
My head is starting to throb from reading it.
I may print this out and give copies to the
Jehovah people when they stop again...
Man, that is evil. Looks good on you. ;-)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
³Itıs not over till the fat whale sings.²
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
11 Jan 2005 02:40:02 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 06:04:07 GMT, ernobe <ernobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
The usual brain dead incoherant *****.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sanguinevikings" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 02:12:36 AM |
|
|
ernobe wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
My atheism is defined thus, sunshine:
The set of all possible gods is a subset of the set of all things for
which any evidence for the existence of has thus far failed to be found.
Now, what were you saying about burden of proof?
Also:
<positive claim>the Gods he claims to lack belief in are not the same as
or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
</positive claim>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 11:18:23 PM |
|
|
ernobe wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
MEDIC!
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Ascher" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 02:07:06 AM |
|
|
ernobe wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden of proof.
Oh, but you have made positive claims: to wit, "religions exists for
real, breathing people, and that irreligion is rightly viewed as
immoral." in this you positively claim that religion is normal and
atheism, by way of irreligion, is immoral. You also posit that theism
consists of believing in a *personal* god. What of those theists who
believe in an *impersonal* god such as in Judaism, Islam, Buddism, and
the numerous deities of Hinduism? You claim here falls flat. Finally,
you end with a sylogism: because atheist don't believe in the gods as
they actually exist (in your argument), therefore an atheist isn't truly
atheistic. Whether or not any such gods exist is a matter of
speculation and hence disbelief in any real or imagined deity/dieties
is/are atheism and its adherents are atheists.
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
10 Jan 2005 02:10:21 AM |
|
|
James Ascher wrote:
ernobe wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a
theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what
atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the
implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe
that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that
religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is
thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a
psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that
his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an
atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two
terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific
religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a
personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that
therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and
the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of
the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that
atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims
to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an
atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden
of proof.
Oh, but you have made positive claims: to wit, "religions exists for
real, breathing people, and that irreligion is rightly viewed as
immoral." in this you positively claim that religion is normal and
atheism, by way of irreligion, is immoral. You also posit that
theism
consists of believing in a *personal* god. What of those theists who
believe in an *impersonal* god such as in Judaism, Islam, Buddism,
and
the numerous deities of Hinduism? You claim here falls flat.
Finally,
you end with a sylogism: because atheist don't believe in the gods as
they actually exist (in your argument), therefore an atheist isn't
truly
atheistic. Whether or not any such gods exist is a matter of
speculation and hence disbelief in any real or imagined deity/dieties
is/are atheism and its adherents are atheists.
James
Don't forget the subject title. Theists don't burden themselves with
truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: What Burden of Proof? |
13 Jan 2005 08:25:15 PM |
|
|
On 10 Jan 2005 00:10:21 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
James Ascher wrote:
ernobe wrote:
The connection between what theism is and what it means to be a
theist is made
explicit by religion. The connection, therefore, between what
atheism is and
what it means to be an atheist cannot be made explicit without the
implication
of irreligion. The question of whether or not to think or believe
that Gods
exist is nothing but a ploy to avert attention from the fact that
religions
exist, comprised of real, breathing people, and that irreligion is
thus rightly
considered to be immoral. It is also a ploy to create a
psychological
confusion in the follower of any religion by convincing him that
his ideas are
untenable from the point of view either of atheism or of an
atheist, while
subtly ignoring and shifting attention from the fact that these two
terms
can only refer to the same thing when referred to a specific
religion, which
exists. This would be like a theist saying that he believes in a
personal
God, and that theism is the belief in personal Gods, and that
therefore he is
entitled to have as many Gods as he pleases. Both the theist and
the atheist
are wrong if they remain ignorant of the true nature and purpose of
the
Religion of God. In sum, an atheist can claim all he wants that
atheism is
only a lack of belief in Gods, but I reply that the Gods he claims
to lack
belief in are not the same as or related to the God he lacks as an
atheist.
In this I have made no positive claim, and therefore bear no burden
of proof.
Oh, but you have made positive claims: to wit, "religions exists for
real, breathing people, and that irreligion is rightly viewed as
immoral." in this you positively claim that religion is normal and
atheism, by way of irreligion, is immoral. You also posit that
theism
consists of believing in a *personal* god. What of those theists who
believe in an *impersonal* god such as in Judaism, Islam, Buddism,
and
the numerous deities of Hinduism? You claim here falls flat.
Finally,
you end with a sylogism: because atheist don't believe in the gods as
they actually exist (in your argument), therefore an atheist isn't
truly
atheistic. Whether or not any such gods exist is a matter of
speculation and hence disbelief in any real or imagined deity/dieties
is/are atheism and its adherents are atheists.
James
Don't forget the subject title. Theists don't burden themselves with
truth.
Because its against their superstition.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
