WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

Religions > Bible > WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 25 of 36

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Bill M"
Date:	09 Sep 2006 03:10:39 PM
Object:	WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
WHICH IF ANY ARE CORRECT???
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the TRUE one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 09:57:09 AM

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

I don't care what you mean when you use the word.

I want to know why you won't use the unambiguous words which carry the
exact meaning which gets lost when you replace them with "believe".

And why you want the rest of us to do the same.

Ohh and I think you do otherwise why shout at me NOT THE WAY YOU MEAN,
and such like.

Belief and Belive are words that are ambiguos to you are athey because
they seem pretty stright forward to me. Belife to hold to the truth of
somthing, without objective proof. Please tell me what is ambiguos
about that, and which words I should use instead?

Belief is to THINK something is true when you don't have objective
proof. You said belief is "to hold to the truth of something, without
objective truth," and that's different. The way you said it, you are
implying that thing you believe IS true, you just don't know how to
prove it. In reality, that thing you believe may turn out not to be
true at all. I don't think you're being ambiguous more than you're
being disingenuous by phrasing it that way.

Are you really, getting this uptight over the definintion of a
word?(again) Is your objective knowledge really that weak that you can
only argue semantics with me. Come on man I'm here for debate not
insult, being shouted ate, and haveing my questions evadaded.

You Atheist's(one or two of you) state that you have no belifes, that
all of your knowledge is objective and quatifiable.

You're missing the point. Atheists have no RELIGIOUS beliefs. Get it?
Religious people tend to blur the definition of religious belief (i.e.
the belief in a supernaural deity or deities) with regular beliefs
(i.e. convictions about something or another, but not religion). When
they find non-religious people have non-religious beliefs they get all
excited and say the non-religious people have beliefs (for example, I
believe my hoemtown hockey team is pretty crappy this year), therefore
they must be religious. You are essentially telling me I am religious
because I think my hockey team is crappy. That is like me telling you
that because you don't believe in Krishna that you must be an atheist,
since you have non-belief in a god.

Then show me,
prove it to me objectivly, quantify it for me so that I understand or
shut up and just admit you lied to me. Or keep shouting at how dim I
am, Iand blame me for using the 'incorrect' words, if you are so right
then show me how you have objectivly reached this conclusion, that
there is in fact no element of belief in your knowledge.

Take off your coward hat and debate man!

User: ""
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 11:30:35 AM

Neil Kelsey wrote:

Hey Niel,
So belife is to belive(think and belive mean more or less the same in
this context yeah) something is true, and to hold to something being
true does not mean the same as think something is true?
Pure semantics mate. But have it your way, then I agree that belife
means to Think something is true.

You're missing the point. Atheists have no RELIGIOUS beliefs. Get it?

No you are missing the point see this:

You Atheist's(one or two of you) state that you have no belifes, that
all of your knowledge is objective and quatifiable.

I wouldn't have written that if Christopher had not told me that he has
NO BELIFES.
I'm not talking about religious belifes, (damn me didn't I say this
yesterday?) I'm talking about beliefes, any and all.

Religious people tend to blur the definition of religious belief (i.e.
the belief in a supernaural deity or deities) with regular beliefs
(i.e. convictions about something or another, but not religion). When
they find non-religious people have non-religious beliefs they get all
excited and say the non-religious people have beliefs (for example, I
believe my hoemtown hockey team is pretty crappy this year), therefore
they must be religious.

Perhaps they do, I wouldn't know about that, I certianly have never
said it. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of Christophers
statements that he has NO BELIFES.

You are essentially telling me I am religious because I think my hockey team is crappy.

I don't see how you get that

That is like me telling you
that because you don't believe in Krishna that you must be an atheist,
since you have non-belief in a god.

Nor that
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 11:47:34 AM

wrote:

Neil Kelsey wrote:

You didn't phrase it that way before. You said belief is "to hold to
the truth of something, without
objective truth," which means something completely different from what
you are now saying. which is to "hold to something being true." The way
you phrase it now I have no argument with. And it's not semantics, it's
your lack of clarity.

Pure semantics mate. But have it your way, then I agree that belife
means to Think something is true.

You forgot "without objective proof."

You're missing the point. Atheists have no RELIGIOUS beliefs. Get it?

No you are missing the point see this:

You Atheist's(one or two of you) state that you have no belifes, that
all of your knowledge is objective and quatifiable.

I wouldn't have written that if Christopher had not told me that he has
NO BELIFES.

Okay. Your debate with Christopher over lack of any beliefs at all is
up to you.

I'm not talking about religious belifes, (damn me didn't I say this
yesterday?) I'm talking about beliefes, any and all.

Perhaps they do, I wouldn't know about that, I certianly have never
said it. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of Christophers
statements that he has NO BELIFES.

You are essentially telling me I am religious because I think my hockey team is crappy.

I don't see how you get that

Sorry, you weren't telling me that. It was a knee jerk reaction,
because theists come in here and confuse the insignificant beliefs
about mundane things like I just described with their religious
beliefs, and try to conclude atheists are religious for that very
reason.

That is like me telling you
that because you don't believe in Krishna that you must be an atheist,
since you have non-belief in a god.

Nor that

My apologies, see above.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 12:06:41 PM

Neil Kelsey wrote:

Not to argue the toss, but when I read:
' to hold to the truth of something, without objective truth'
I read it as meaning, to think something is true, or to belive someting
is true. I really can't see this extra meaning you talk about, perhaps
you can enlighten me?

You forgot "without objective proof."

I asummed it was inherent, sorry about that.

I understand.

My apologies, see above.

Accepted.
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 05:45:43 PM

wrote:

Neil Kelsey wrote:

Not to argue the toss, but when I read:

' to hold to the truth of something, without objective truth'

I meant to type 'to hold to the truth of something, without objective
PROOF,' which was what you said before.

I read it as meaning, to think something is true, or to belive someting
is true. I really can't see this extra meaning you talk about, perhaps
you can enlighten me?

You forgot "without objective proof."

I asummed it was inherent, sorry about that.

I understand.

My apologies, see above.

Accepted.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 10:08:37 AM

On 16 Oct 2006 07:57:09 -0700, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:

lee@rdfmedia.com wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

Ohh and I think you do otherwise why shout at me NOT THE WAY YOU MEAN,
and such like.

If he took any notice nobody would need to shout get through to him.

Belief and Belive are words that are ambiguos to you are athey because
they seem pretty stright forward to me. Belife to hold to the truth of
somthing, without objective proof. Please tell me what is ambiguos
about that, and which words I should use instead?

Exactly. "believe" is subjective. Somebody talking abut the state of
their mind.
He is being dishonest, deliberately using an ambiguity to pretend his
subjective beliefs are on the same level as objective knowledge,
conclusions, falsifiable conclusions, not believing something and a
whole slew of others.

He knows, that's why he does it. It's a standard but dishonest
pot-shot the foot-soldiers for God take, when they're sniping at
atheists.
I, for one, don't have that kind of belief. I used to have my
favourite football (soccer), cricket and rugby league teams. But I was
also realistic about them and just liked watching a good game.

There's nothing to debate. Especially with somebody who uses Humpty
Dumpty English.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 11:42:45 AM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

If he took any notice nobody would need to shout get through to him.

Took any notice of the fantastic arguments that you have put forth?
Sorry I didn't notice any of them, only the constant 'your wrong' and
still without any of your arguments why that is the case.

Exactly. "believe" is subjective. Somebody talking abut the state of
their mind.

Yes at last, and do you still state then that you have none?

He is being dishonest, deliberately using an ambiguity to pretend his
subjective beliefs are on the same level as objective knowledge,
conclusions, falsifiable conclusions, not believing something and a
whole slew of others.

I have never done that, please point out where I did? Also please show
me where I was being ambiguos?

He knows, that's why he does it. It's a standard but dishonest
pot-shot the foot-soldiers for God take, when they're sniping at
atheists.

So you know me, know whats in my mind? Or are you just reacting to the
way you have been treated in the past? Again, although you may call me
one, I am not a foot soldier for God, you do not even know what I
belive in that respect, how can you then attempt to debate...Ohh wait
you havn't.

I, for one, don't have that kind of belief. I used to have my
favourite football (soccer), cricket and rugby league teams. But I was
also realistic about them and just liked watching a good game.

So still no belifes then?

There's nothing to debate. Especially with somebody who uses Humpty
Dumpty English.

Theres plenty to debate your just too scared. Again with the insult
huh! Fair doo's then. I have grown used to my disability and I can
see that it obviously effects others more than me. But for you to
constantly attack me for this, well then is that what your rational
though gives you then?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	19 Oct 2006 06:20:15 AM

wrote:

Theres plenty to debate your just too scared.

So explain what you meant when you said I was *correct* and lets test
your ability to debate the 100% absolute certain reality of your
replies.
Does being correct mean, (in the context we were discussing) that what
I said corresponded precisely absolutely with 100% certainity to the
reality of what you said?
MG
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	13 Oct 2006 05:36:00 PM

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:31:12 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <6k1vi2965mphis3hi2t5i8lod9pdv9s6dh@4ax.com>

On 13 Oct 2006 03:17:36 -0700, "lee@rdfmedia.com" <lee@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:

What do you think I mean by the word belief? Oh clever sage like mind
ready!

My judgment is that it is another one of his "reality avoidance"
mechanisms.
One can only guess as to how and where he managed to acquire it.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 04:51:28 AM

Michael Gray wrote:

My judgment is that it is another one of his "reality avoidance"
mechanisms.
One can only guess as to how and where he managed to acquire it.

Hey Michael,
How so?
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	16 Oct 2006 05:51:04 AM

On 16 Oct 2006 02:51:28 -0700, "lee@rdfmedia.com" <lee@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1160992288.427057.171770@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>

Michael Gray wrote:

My judgment is that it is another one of his "reality avoidance"
mechanisms.
One can only guess as to how and where he managed to acquire it.

Hey Michael,

How so?

"How so" what?
You really must be a little clearer in your interrogation if you
expect me to respond intelligibly.
(And it would help enormously if you quoted the surrounding con-text
as well, rather than discourteously snipping text on an unattributed
basis.)
Usenet is a learning experience.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 08:22:37 AM

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:40:07 -0500,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc wrote:

In <1160568248.936674.57790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, on 10/11/06
at 05:04 AM, "lee@rdfmedia.com" <lee@rdfmedia.com> said:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

I've never understood these assholes. They have no common sense and
see nothing wrong with arrogantly lecturing us about what our point of
view "really" is.

Anybody who says atheism is a religion, is doing it to be nasty.

They know it hasn't any of the properties of their own religion. None
whatsoever. So can you think of any other reason they say it?

Hey Christopher,

Lemme try to explain then. When we, the religious and the non religious
talk together one of many reocurring themes tends to be us(The religious)
being told by them(the non religious) that because we have a belief
system(something that we belive in with no proof) then we are prone to
delusion patterns of thought.

And?

Of course this is true, by all defintions of the word delusiuonal.
However when we try to point out that even they are subject to this sort
of thoguth patterns we are told this is not the case. We don't do it to
'be nasty' we do it to show them that it is only our 'belifes' that
differ.

When you try to point out that your thoughts are different than ours were
your mythologies concerned in attempt to elevate an inactive concept into
a believe system, that is when you step in the dog *****. This would not be
so but xians as a group tend to have this inclination to track it all
across the new carpet in our virtual living room. It does not take very
long for this type of conduct to become a very old.

Now I suspect that I'm going to hear how you don't have any belifes? To
which I would say you then are lying, even to yourselfs.

The problem here is that they equivocate on the word "belief".
It carries a lot of different meanings. Too many really, and when it
is used it gets in the way of explanation.
I can see why they want to do it though. They want to us to "admit"
that we have beliefs like "the Earth orbits the Sun" so they can say
"see, you have beliefs after all".
But it's not that kind of belief. And it's the wrong word as well -
because belief implies personal and subjective. When we're actually
talking about objective fact. One doesn't need to merely "believe"
this. It is objectively known through observation.
They have already established the context and meaning of the word, as
the theist's kind of belief. And as such we have no beliefs using that
meaning. Let alone any that are contingent on being atheist.
He is lying when he says we are lying to ourselves.

Beliefs, of course people have beliefs, so them although so far as to say
unfounded such as the attractiveness of their wife or the intelligence of
their children. The problem for you is, you tend to inflate it your
belief in a god who is nonexistent for all practical purposes if not in
fact to having an opposing belief called atheism. Now that's not really a
problem as long as xians keep their mouth shut when it comes to conflating
the two, based on a number of post by distance claiming that atheism is a
belief, up to and including a religious belief, I can only conclude that
yes, they are deliberately lying.

Because they know it has none of the attributes their own religion
has.

How can I say this, what makes me sure of this? Take any rationaly
thought out thing that you know, and show me how you know it to be true,
100% and not how it can be shown to be infeered from what else you know,
nor how it is subjectivly true based on our sense, but how you feel 100%
sure of it's validity, for all thing, for all times.

Here is a simple exercise in logic, you cannot stop a Mack truck doing 95
km per second with your bare chest. One would hope that the logical steps
required to arrive at the belief that you cannot stop a Mack truck with
your chest, do they?

Which is why I wouldn't call it a belief. It is a conclusion.

If you can do this, then I for one will keep shtuum in the future re:
this topic.

And we can anticipate utter silence from you on this topic starting when?

Don't hold your breath.

walksalone who has a sincere doubts about the validity of the other
persons claim for silence on this particular subject but is willing to be
pleasantly surprised and shown to be in error in this case.

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them.
Abraham Lincol

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	10 Oct 2006 06:55:26 PM

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:26:53 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ta3oi2pjvrokh7b2s95oe3urgkjhaqsmqp@4ax.com>

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:29:51 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"Brian Fletcher" <brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:0kHWg.44778$rP1.14435@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:79dmi2h1hgku5tj3ecnamfrd6s8ohoqvob@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:49:20 GMT, Adam Ruth <owski@hotmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:

[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]

We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?

Atheism is a religion.

Anybody who says that is either a liar or an idiot. It is no more a
religon than not watching baseball, is a sport.

Well, that would depend on which definition of religion you use:

"A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance :
_consumerism is the new religion_"

For some people, Atheism could meet that definition, but I really doubt
it was used that way.

Even with that one, they're just being stupid.

Atheism, by definition, is a belief,

Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief.

Blithering stupidity combined with astounding ignorance, perhaps?
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	10 Oct 2006 04:57:07 AM

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:79dmi2h1hgku5tj3ecnamfrd6s8ohoqvob@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:49:20 GMT, Adam Ruth <owski@hotmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Atheism is a religion.

Anybody who says that is either a liar or an idiot. It is no more a
religon than not watching baseball, is a sport.

Even with that one, they're just being stupid.

Atheism, by definition, is a belief, and beliefs are at the foundation of
religions, so I dont see it as drawing "too long a bow" to suggest that
atheism is a religion.

Yet another lying theist who arrogantly gets imagines to lecture
atheists as to what it means to be atheist.
What part of "an atheist is somebody who isn't theist" are you too
stupid to understand?

Ask and atheist to defend his position, and he will likely argue
"religiously"...

Only because morons like you keep getting it wrong.
BTW there's nothing to defend.

BOfL

FOAD
.

User: "Brian Fletcher"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	10 Oct 2006 07:28:03 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gcrmi212auh6ha58cq2osdai24b2nmngev@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:79dmi2h1hgku5tj3ecnamfrd6s8ohoqvob@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:49:20 GMT, Adam Ruth <owski@hotmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Atheism is a religion.

Anybody who says that is either a liar or an idiot. It is no more a
religon than not watching baseball, is a sport.

Even with that one, they're just being stupid.

Atheism, by definition, is a belief, and beliefs are at the foundation of
religions, so I dont see it as drawing "too long a bow" to suggest that
atheism is a religion.

Yet another lying theist who arrogantly gets imagines to lecture
atheists as to what it means to be atheist.

Even atheists should "judge not", not because they'll go to "hell" but they
make themselves look like total fuckwits.
You believe there is no God, I dont believe there is a God.
Are you smart enough to see the difference. Both atheists?

What part of "an atheist is somebody who isn't theist" are you too
stupid to understand?

Both believers.

Ask and atheist to defend his position, and he will likely argue
"religiously"...

Only because morons like you keep getting it wrong.

BTW there's nothing to defend.

Didnt stop you attacking, and attacking is another form of
defence...Capiche?
BOfL

BOfL

FOAD

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 01:25:30 AM

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:28:03 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gcrmi212auh6ha58cq2osdai24b2nmngev@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:79dmi2h1hgku5tj3ecnamfrd6s8ohoqvob@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:49:20 GMT, Adam Ruth <owski@hotmail.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:55:35 -0500, "Russ Rose" <russrose@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Atheism is a religion.

Anybody who says that is either a liar or an idiot. It is no more a
religon than not watching baseball, is a sport.

Even with that one, they're just being stupid.

Atheism, by definition, is a belief, and beliefs are at the foundation of
religions, so I dont see it as drawing "too long a bow" to suggest that
atheism is a religion.

Yet another lying theist who arrogantly gets imagines to lecture
atheists as to what it means to be atheist.

Even atheists should "judge not", not because they'll go to "hell" but they
make themselves look like total fuckwits.

The fuckwit was the one who told atheists we believe something we
don't.

You believe there is no God, I dont believe there is a God.

Neither do I, liar.

Are you smart enough to see the difference. Both atheists?

An idiot as well as a liar.

What part of "an atheist is somebody who isn't theist" are you too
stupid to understand?

Both believers.

How so, liar?

Ask and atheist to defend his position, and he will likely argue
"religiously"...

Only because morons like you keep getting it wrong.

BTW there's nothing to defend.

Didnt stop you attacking, and attacking is another form of
defence...Capiche?

No, moron. Just treating a liar as a liar. Can you grasp the
difference?

BOfL

FOAD
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	10 Oct 2006 10:29:10 AM

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Atheism, by definition, is a belief

Is your lack of belief in Odin a religion? If not, why is our lack of
belief in your god a religion?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Brian Fletcher"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	10 Oct 2006 07:29:20 PM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j0fni2t7fj8b0muvchn71okb0vqrdsg8em@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Atheism, by definition, is a belief

Is your lack of belief in Odin a religion? If not, why is our lack of
belief in your god a religion?

Believers believe. The rest is "mere detail" For example you believe I have
a God.
BOfL

--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all
that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human
beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

User: "Voracious"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 07:10:41 PM

Brian Fletcher wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j0fni2t7fj8b0muvchn71okb0vqrdsg8em@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Atheism, by definition, is a belief

Is your lack of belief in Odin a religion? If not, why is our lack of
belief in your god a religion?

Believers believe. The rest is "mere detail" For example you believe I have
a God.

I believe you have a delusion that *you* call God!
Voracious
.

User: "Brian Fletcher"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	12 Oct 2006 07:21:40 AM

"Voracious" <null@void.org> wrote in message
news:5KfXg.14080$6S3.12488@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Brian Fletcher wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j0fni2t7fj8b0muvchn71okb0vqrdsg8em@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Atheism, by definition, is a belief

Is your lack of belief in Odin a religion? If not, why is our lack of
belief in your god a religion?

Believers believe. The rest is "mere detail" For example you believe I
have a God.

I believe you have a delusion that *you* call God!

Beliefs are illusions that seek mutual support for validation.
BOfL

Voracious

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	12 Oct 2006 07:36:52 AM

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:21:40 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Beliefs are illusions that seek mutual support for validation.

And theism is a belief, so ...
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Brian Fletcher"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	12 Oct 2006 11:11:55 AM

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lmdsi2lvu909l95r3f6s0vctsq75830jdd@4ax.com...

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:21:40 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Beliefs are illusions that seek mutual support for validation.

And theism is a belief, so ...

If the definition of atheism is "not theism" then, the structure of the
word implies the converse to be true. A belief about beliefs, which is where
I came in, and where Im going out.
BOfL

--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	12 Oct 2006 01:46:08 PM

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:11:55 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:lmdsi2lvu909l95r3f6s0vctsq75830jdd@4ax.com...

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:21:40 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Beliefs are illusions that seek mutual support for validation.

And theism is a belief, so ...

If the definition of atheism is "not theism" then, the structure of the
word implies the converse to be true.

The converse of "theism is a belief" isn't "lack of theism is a
belief", An apple is a fruit. Lack of an apple is a fruit? so what
color hair is "bald"?

A belief about beliefs

Ah, but "a belief about beliefs" is your construct, not theism. theism
is LACK of a particular belief, not a belief ABOUT it. So, again, you
redefine a word merely to win an argument. You lose.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 01:26:56 AM

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:20 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j0fni2t7fj8b0muvchn71okb0vqrdsg8em@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Atheism, by definition, is a belief

Is your lack of belief in Odin a religion? If not, why is our lack of
belief in your god a religion?

Believers believe. The rest is "mere detail" For example you believe I have
a God.

When you misrepresent atheists to our faces by lying about imagined
beliefs you know we don't have, and refuse to accept correction, the
conclusion was obvious.
.

User: "Brian Fletcher"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 02:54:25 AM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4j3pi2llle7msucrt1arofjkudhabtu6u2@4ax.com...

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:20 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:j0fni2t7fj8b0muvchn71okb0vqrdsg8em@4ax.com...

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:45:16 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
<brianf88@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

Atheism, by definition, is a belief

Is your lack of belief in Odin a religion? If not, why is our lack of
belief in your god a religion?

Believers believe. The rest is "mere detail" For example you believe I
have
a God.

When you misrepresent atheists to our faces by lying about imagined
beliefs you know we don't have, and refuse to accept correction, the
conclusion was obvious.

Trying to talk reason to people like you is similar to trying to talk to an
funde-mentalist, religionist or otherwise. One way to recognise such
mentality, is the individual always speaks for "us".
I am however very patient. Tell me, do YOU believe there is no God or do you
know so..
Try and answer objectively.
.

User: "Craig Franck"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 06:31:15 PM

"Brian Fletcher" wrote

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

When you misrepresent atheists to our faces by lying about imagined
beliefs you know we don't have, and refuse to accept correction, the
conclusion was obvious.

Trying to talk reason to people like you is similar to trying to talk to
an funde-mentalist, religionist or otherwise. One way to recognise such
mentality, is the individual always speaks for "us".

I am however very patient. Tell me, do YOU believe there is no God or do
you know so..

Try and answer objectively.

Part of the problem is there are various kinds of atheists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
Christopher may be more of a non-theist in the same way some
people don't believe that God is Nature since it never occurred to
them or they find the belief incoherent or simply too silly to
entertain.
But some atheists do have strong anti-theistic feelings to the point
that someone making an argument for theism provokes a good
deal of hostility. (They might be better described as recovering
theists.)
There is also the issue of whether someone who replaces theistic
beliefs with naturalistic beliefs has an "atheistic belief system" or
not. If they were to urge repeatedly that they did not, I'd take them
at their word.
You also need to distinguish between inferred beliefs from science
and "revealed truths" from religion, the latter not being entirely
rational. Science provides justified beliefs which are not based
on some kind of faith other than in the method itself. So the
opposite of a religious belief is another religious belief, and the
opposite of a scientific belief is skepticism, which means they are
different kinds of beliefs.
--
Craig Franck
craig.franck@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 09:14:46 PM

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:31:15 GMT, "Craig Franck"
<craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote:
- Refer: <79fXg.3280$HP.3262@trndny08>

"Brian Fletcher" wrote

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

When you misrepresent atheists to our faces by lying about imagined
beliefs you know we don't have, and refuse to accept correction, the
conclusion was obvious.

Trying to talk reason to people like you is similar to trying to talk to
an funde-mentalist, religionist or otherwise. One way to recognise such
mentality, is the individual always speaks for "us".

I am however very patient. Tell me, do YOU believe there is no God or do
you know so..

Try and answer objectively.

Except for those vociferous anti-theists who have never ever been
theistic.

There is also the issue of whether someone who replaces theistic
beliefs with naturalistic beliefs has an "atheistic belief system" or
not. If they were to urge repeatedly that they did not, I'd take them
at their word.

You also need to distinguish between inferred beliefs from science
and "revealed truths" from religion, the latter not being entirely
rational. Science provides justified beliefs which are not based
on some kind of faith other than in the method itself. So the
opposite of a religious belief is another religious belief, and the
opposite of a scientific belief is skepticism, which means they are
different kinds of beliefs.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	11 Oct 2006 06:51:07 PM

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:31:15 GMT, "Craig Franck"
<craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote:

"Brian Fletcher" wrote

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

When you misrepresent atheists to our faces by lying about imagined
beliefs you know we don't have, and refuse to accept correction, the
conclusion was obvious.

Trying to talk reason to people like you is similar to trying to talk to
an funde-mentalist, religionist or otherwise. One way to recognise such
mentality, is the individual always speaks for "us".

I am however very patient. Tell me, do YOU believe there is no God or do
you know so..

Try and answer objectively.

There are a few problems though:
- All it takes to be atheist, is not being theist. Anything else any
atheist might say or do is over and above that.
- The very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing to atheists
that it does to theists.
- The language used by the common usage definitions, implicitly grants
the theist's presumptions including its existence outside their
religion and that atheists believe it [something that exists]
doesn't exist, while agnostics don't know. Neither of which actually
describe non-believers.
- It is part of the theist's paradigm not the atheist's.
- Those of us who were never theist in the first place, have nothing
to believe doesn't exist, to be agnostic or even to not believe in.
- Most of the "hostility" is a reaction to having somebody else's
theism imposed. It is not really "anti-theistic", just a natural
human reaction.

Any "naturalism" is incidental and consequential, not foundational.

You also need to distinguish between inferred beliefs from science
and "revealed truths" from religion, the latter not being entirely
rational. Science provides justified beliefs which are not based
on some kind of faith other than in the method itself. So the
opposite of a religious belief is another religious belief, and the
opposite of a scientific belief is skepticism, which means they are
different kinds of beliefs.

It's why the word "belief" should not be used when there are better
words that carry the exact meaning which disappears when the word
"belief" gets used.
Besides which, once the theistic context has been established, the
word has taken on the meaning of the theist's belief in the absence of
evidence. At which point it is simply incorrect to use it to describe
anything that isn't that kind of belief.
"Belief" also implies subjective rather than objective.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion	12 Oct 2006 12:24:18 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:31:15 GMT, "Craig Franck"
<craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote:

"Brian Fletcher" wrote

"Christopher A. Lee" wrote

When you misrepresent atheists to our faces by lying about imagined
beliefs you know we don't have, and refuse to accept correction, the
conclusion was obvious.

Trying to talk reason to people like you is similar to trying to talk to
an funde-mentalist, religionist or otherwise. One way to recognise such
mentality, is the individual always speaks for "us".

I am however very patient. Tell me, do YOU believe there is no God or do
you know so..

Try and answer objectively.

There are a few problems though:

You seem to be making a serious error below. You are presuming the
truth of that which you are trying to demonstrate -- namely that
atheism is, in fact, an affirmative belief, despite the fact that many
people here are claiming the opposite.
Since that is the point in contention here, you cannot simply assert
that it is true, which it seems that you are doing.

- All it takes to be atheist, is not being theist. Anything else any
atheist might say or do is over and above that.

That is correct. To lack theism -- to be without theism is to be an
atheist. That includes those who explictly reject all versions of god,
those who believe that the existence of god cannot be determined in
principle and those who have simply never heard of god, as the term is
generally understood.

- The very word "God" doesn't even mean the same thing to atheists
that it does to theists.

Again, presuming the truth of that which is in contention. If atheism
is simply the lack of theism, then "theism" can only be defined by
theists. Clearly, though, theists are not at all in agreement as to
what god is. It has been said of the majority of theists that they are,
in fact, atheists in respect to the majority of god beliefs, with the
exception of their own -- and that to be an atheist, one need only
reject one more god belief that the average theist.

- The language used by the common usage definitions, implicitly grants
the theist's presumptions including its existence outside their
religion and that atheists believe it [something that exists]
doesn't exist, while agnostics don't know. Neither of which actually
describe non-believers.

Are you suggesting that the definition of theism grants the theist's
presumption regarding the existence of god?
This hardly seems relevant, since the term "theist" would include
everything from the worship of Jehovah to the worship of Isis to the
worship of Quetzlcoatl -- all clearly mutually exclusive god beliefs -
yet all the believers are clearly theists. They all believe in gods of
some sort.
And once again, you presume the truth under discussion -- that in order
to be an atheist one most somehow affirmatively *believe* in the
non-existence of each and every one of these various gods.
And in reference to agnostics, you are also incorrect. It is not true
that agnostics "don't know" -- rather the claim, as I understand it, is
that the nature of god is such that his existence is intrinsically
unknowable -- not simply that we don't know, like we don't know what
Nero had for breakfast on the day he died.
In any case, whether a particular dictionary definition *presumes* the
truth of the existence of some god or other is irrelevant to the
factual question of such a god's existence. Neither dictionaries nor
the definers of words decide questions of fact.
God, as defined by this religious system, or that one, or that one, or
that other one, or that one, or that other one -- either exists or does
not exist. He cannot be defined into existence or out of it.
And ultimately, all terms are defined not by the collections of words
we find in dictionaries, but by the entities or actions or concepts to
which they refer in the world.

- It is part of the theist's paradigm not the atheist's.

Again, you presume that the "atheist" has a particular paradigm that
exists independent of theism. Theism, in fact, consists of a vast
multiplicity of belief systems, connected only by a belief, so far as I
can tell, in vast, powerful, supernatural beings who are somehow
involved in the making or running of the world.

- Those of us who were never theist in the first place, have nothing
to believe doesn't exist, to be agnostic or even to not believe in.

Once again, you presume something not in evidence -- that "atheism" is
a positive belief system -- a "belief that something doesn't exist" --
as distinct from simply the lack of a belief in something.
"Those of us" (and I don't know who the "us" is to whom you are
referring) who were never theist in the first place -- have always been
atheists. It doesn't require a decision. It doesn't require any
evaluation of evidence, any judgement, any determination, any
affirmative stand on any question.
You have a very simple statement.
God(s) exist.
Follow this with a very simple question.
Do you consider the above statement to be true?
Those who answer yes are theists.
All others are atheists.
There is no excluded middle.

- Most of the "hostility" is a reaction to having somebody else's
theism imposed. It is not really "anti-theistic", just a natural
human reaction.

Irrelevant to the underlying issue. Atheism is not an emotional
response. It is simply the absence of theism.

Again -- a different question. One may be an atheist and also be a
materialist or something altogether different -- in which case, one is
a materialist, or a naturalist -- and one has a materialistic belief
system, or a naturalistic belief system.
And that's what it is -- a materialistic belief system, or a
naturalistic belief system, or a secular humanist belief system. Not an
atheistic one.
That's because it is possible to be, for instance, a secular humanist,
which addresses issues of ethics and human relations and our place in
the world and how one ought to treat other people and live your life
and all of those sorts of things.
But atheism does none of those things. It isn't a system of any kind.
It doesn't tell you to do anything or refrain from doing anything. It
leads to no particular kind of behavior (despite theistic claims to the
contrary). It asks nothing of you. It requires nothing of you.
It is simply, in its broadest category, the absence of a belief. And
even in its most explicit category -- those who explicitly have
considered and actively reject the existence of all gods and
supernatural beings -- it still is simply a position on a particular
question about the world, no different, as far as we're concerned, from
whether or not people can read minds or whether or not there are
ghosts. What? No ghosts? Then I'm going to go out and rape and pillage
and kill!!! No. Not really.

Any "naturalism" is incidental and consequential, not foundational.

I would assert that such things are strictly tangential.

But I suggest that that distinction is a strictly arbitrary one imposed
by religious believers in order to protect their particular beliefs
from the kind of rigor that would otherwise lead to those beliefs being
abandoned.
To say, we have reasons for believing some things and no reasons for
believing other things - but we believe the "no reasons" things just
the same because those are special things that can only be believed for
"no reasons" -- sounds pretty stupid.
At any rate, it does to people around here.
Part of the rejection of supernaturalism (which is at the heart of
religious belief) is the rejection of a two-tier system that lets an
entire category of presumably true things off the hook in terms of
demonstrating their veracity in a meaningful way.
And I think that that which cannot, in principle, be demonstrated to be
true should be, at least provisionally, be considered to be false --
because at the very least, all such things are indistinguishable from
false.

It's why the word "belief" should not be used when there are better
words that carry the exact meaning which disappears when the word
"belief" gets used.

Besides which, once the theistic context has been established, the
word has taken on the meaning of the theist's belief in the absence of
evidence. At which point it is simply incorrect to use it to describe
anything that isn't that kind of belief.

"Belief" also implies subjective rather than objective.

Clearly, the word has a multiplicity of meanings which permit for
misunderstandings.
"I don't believe in leprechauns." "I believe my wife is faithful." "I
believe in the theory of relativity." "I believe that the sun will rise
tomorrow."
All slightly different meanings.
NMS
.