A good definition of atheism [Archive] - Drug & Alcohol Rehab Forums & News

neuro equipoise

07-29-2004, 04:15 PM

On - Thu, Jul 29, 2004, 6:00pm (EDT+4) can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

> Agnosticism is no position at all. It's the same
> position as that held by a slug.

"Microsoft Recruits Sea Slugs"*

"Even the most primitive creature is more complex than the most advanced
computer system. This is why Microsoft Research and the University of
Washington are working together on a new project to study and analyze
the behavior of basic organisms, such as sea slugs.

"We in computer science have been trying figure out how to get a
computer to decide what is important and what is irrelevant," said Dr.
Eric Horvitz, head of Microsoft Research's decision theory and adaptive
systems group. "Well, it turns out that Mother Nature already does that
very well."

To study how organisms make these decisions, microprocessor specialist
Dr. Chris Diorio and biologist Dr. Dennis Willows from the University of
Washington are collaborating with Horvitz to implant a tiny silicon chip
in a sea slug.

What the researchers are trying to determine is not so much how a
creature decides what information is important, but how it discards what
is useless.

Researchers believe they can apply the methods used by slugs to
prioritize information on computer systems."

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,14955,00.html

Thomas Andrews

07-29-2004, 06:27 PM

>>No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
>>not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
>
>
> I humbly beg to differ. Absolute, unqualified belief in the non-existence
> in a Supreme Being, First Cause, God, Yahweh, or whatever is as
> faith-based as the inchoate opinions of the most obnoxius tele-evangilist.
>
> Agnosticism is the only logical position.
>
> Cheers,
> Lech
>

Actually no. Agnostism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Gnostism deals with knowledge and theism deals with beleif.

An agnostic atheist is one who does not beleive in a deity due to lack
of evidence in said deity. But does not claim to know this for a fact.
(i.e. most atheists)

An agnostic theist is one who does beleive in a deity but claims no
knowledge about the deity. (i.e someone who beleives in a general god
but no one religion)

Tommy

07-29-2004, 06:33 PM

H.P. Gawd <> quoted
> From here:
> http://tinyurl.com/5se8p
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> What is atheism?
>
> Answer:
>
> No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
> not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote
> a belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. Atheism is
> simply an adjective used to distinguish those of us who
> don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.

Hmm, space is well, relative. Where/what is space.
Pixie??

What type of atheism are you describing?
Hindu-atheism, christian atheism, buiddhist atheism, catholic atheism,
protestant atheism, cognitive atheism, rejectionist atheism, ignorance
based atheism disinterested atheism ie, agnosticism/unrelated/ atheism.

It ponders a lot of questions.
I suggest a word with a spitiual advisor, or maybe a psychic will contact
you
Cheers
Tommy

Bobby L.

07-29-2004, 07:03 PM

"H.P. Gawd" <hpgawd@non-anonymous.org> wrote in message
news:232hg0l2hcbci5igj651asq6hbvnc7fsan@4ax.com...
>
> From here:
> http://tinyurl.com/5se8p
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> What is atheism?
>
> Answer:
>
> No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
> not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote
> a belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. Atheism is
> simply an adjective used to distinguish those of us who
> don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>

Perhaps it is better to keep it simple.

For me, the atheist is the one who believes there is no higher, stronger or
more knowledgable power than man;
The agnostic is one who is not willing to commit to the presence or absence
of that same power.

Bobby L

Thomas Andrews

07-29-2004, 07:11 PM

> Perhaps it is better to keep it simple.
>
> For me, the atheist is the one who believes <snip>

Atheism is NOT a belief, it's a lack of belief.

Thomas Andrews

07-29-2004, 07:17 PM

H.P. Gawd wrote:

> From here:
> http://tinyurl.com/5se8p
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> What is atheism?
>
> Answer:
>
> No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
> not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote
> a belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. Atheism is
> simply an adjective used to distinguish those of us who
> don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>

Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any god(s)'.

Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this way -
all babies are born atheists.

Robert McGregor

07-29-2004, 08:41 PM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cec0ia$ek9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> H.P. Gawd wrote:
>
> > From here:
> > http://tinyurl.com/5se8p
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > What is atheism?
> >
> > Answer:
> >
> > No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> > not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
> > not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote
> > a belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. Atheism is
> > simply an adjective used to distinguish those of us who
> > don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any
god(s)'.
>
> Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this
way -
> all babies are born atheists.

With your demonstrated faith in conjecture, then your "think of it
this way," it's amusing to see you proselytising a belief.

Bob

Ron

07-29-2004, 09:02 PM

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:15:36 -0400, neuro equipoise
<NeuroEquipoise@webtv.net> wrote:

> "Microsoft Recruits Sea Slugs"*

Guess that explains why windows is so sluggish.

Ta-boom, ching...

--
AB5DB9CC

Virtualoso

07-29-2004, 09:27 PM

"Lech K. Lesiak" <lklesiak@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<Pine.A41.4.05.10407290732580.35704-100000@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>...
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, H.P. Gawd wrote:
>
> > No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> > not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
>
> I humbly beg to differ. Absolute, unqualified belief in the non-existence
> in a Supreme Being, First Cause, God, Yahweh, or whatever is as
> faith-based as the inchoate opinions of the most obnoxius tele-evangilist.
>
> Agnosticism is the only logical position.

Only for those limited to their own concepts of "God" as only being
what they don't and possibly can't know.

Thomas Andrews

07-29-2004, 09:36 PM

>>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any
>
> god(s)'.
>
>>Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this
>
> way -
>
>>all babies are born atheists.
>
>
> With your demonstrated faith in conjecture, then your "think of it
> this way," it's amusing to see you proselytising a belief.
>
> Bob
>
>

I'm glad you are amused. But what 'faith' exactly have I demonstrated?
The only proselytizing I have done is on the correct usage of a
particular work. Frankly I could not care less what 'space pixies' or
gods you choose believe in. :)

The prefix 'A' in atheist is Greek for 'not'. So atheist literally means
'not theist'. Therefore anyone who lacks theistic belief (including
babies) is by definition an atheist.

What is it about this simple concept that people find so hard to understand?

Robert McGregor

07-29-2004, 10:35 PM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cec8n4$pa9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any
> >
> > god(s)'.
> >
> >>Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it
this
> >
> > way -
> >
> >>all babies are born atheists.
> >
> >
> > With your demonstrated faith in conjecture, then your "think of
it
> > this way," it's amusing to see you proselytising a belief.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
> I'm glad you are amused. But what 'faith' exactly have I
demonstrated?

You demonstrated faith in your conjecture as to what babies believe,
also demonstrated faith that man invented Gods prior to God/s
inventing man.

> The only proselytizing I have done is on the correct usage of a
> particular work. Frankly I could not care less what 'space pixies'
or
> gods you choose believe in. :)

You have clearly proselytised your faith regarding what you believe
babies don't believe.

>
> The prefix 'A' in atheist is Greek for 'not'. So atheist literally
means
> 'not theist'. Therefore anyone who lacks theistic belief (including
> babies) is by definition an atheist.

In the Oxford dictionary, the Greek prefix "A" translates as
"without," while Atheism is defined as a belief or theory. In at
least one online dictionary, atheist is defined as "One who
disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods." Do you
speculate that all babies are into disbelief and denial, or merely
pre-occupied with theory?

>
> What is it about this simple concept that people find so hard to
understand?

For some people, your simplistic proselytisation is very easy to
understand.

Bob

Michael Yardley

07-29-2004, 10:52 PM

Atheism is really the only true religion if you like, as it is the
truth. All religions and cult's are lies and based on none truth's.
alt.atheism is a good newsgroup to read up on the subject and they
have a good URL FAQ etc http://www.alt-atheism.org. All religious AA
Er's hate atheist's, but there are many in AA. Higher power is what
you want it to be. Personally I hate Christian's as they are all
phonies and they expect you to believe their crap.
The Big Book, Jesus and Bible are a pile of bullshit. We all have one
thing in common. We are trying to stop drinking and get improvement in
our life's. Just go to meeting's.

neuro equipoise

07-30-2004, 12:01 AM

> On - Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 1:02am (EDT+4)
> can@the.spam (Ron) wrote:

>> "Microsoft Recruits Sea Slugs"*

> Guess that explains why windows is so sluggish.
> Ta-boom, ching...

I told him to use cockroaches, but Bill was afraid he'd be known as the
head of Microcock.

Thomas Andrews

07-30-2004, 09:03 AM

>>I'm glad you are amused. But what 'faith' exactly have I
>
> demonstrated?
>
> You demonstrated faith in your conjecture as to what babies believe,

Well now. It's an opinion. It's not faith because I accept that I do not
KNOW this as a fact. However it is logical to presume that one does not
believe something until they have been introduced to that concept.

I'm sure you would agree babies are not born with a knowledge of
Shakespeare, it's just common sense and it's absurd to suggest
otherwise. Not faith.

In fact I am amused at the concept of a 2 day old Christian or Muslim or
Hindu or whatever.

> also demonstrated faith that man invented Gods prior to God/s
> inventing man.
>

There are 2000+ plus gods that have been worshiped all with conflicting
attributes. They CANNOT all exist. Even the most fundamental theists
concede that.

It's not faith to say that man invented god because it's not my
unwaivering belief. My opinion on these matters are subject to change
pending further evidence.

>
>
>>The only proselytizing I have done is on the correct usage of a
>>particular work. Frankly I could not care less what 'space pixies'
>
> or
>
>>gods you choose believe in. :)
>
>
> You have clearly proselytised your faith regarding what you believe
> babies don't believe.
>
>
>>The prefix 'A' in atheist is Greek for 'not'. So atheist literally
>
> means
>
>>'not theist'. Therefore anyone who lacks theistic belief (including
>>babies) is by definition an atheist.
>
>
> In the Oxford dictionary, the Greek prefix "A" translates as
> "without," while Atheism is defined as a belief or theory. In at
> least one online dictionary, atheist is defined as "One who
> disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods." Do you
> speculate that all babies are into disbelief and denial, or merely
> pre-occupied with theory?
>

I speculate that because babies have not been introduced to religion
that they are 'without theism' - atheists.

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods." certainly
encompasses a particular type of atheist but not all atheists.

How many atheists have you spoken to?

neuro equipoise

07-30-2004, 10:11 AM

On - Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 2:03pm (EDT+5) ThomasAndrews@nospam.com
(Thomas*Andrews)
wrote:

> There are 2000+ plus gods that have been
> worshiped all with conflicting attributes. They
> CANNOT all exist. Even the most fundamental
> theists concede that.

"They who first referred this malady to the gods appear to me to have
been just such persons as the conjurors, purificators, mountebanks, and
charlatans now are, who give themselves out for being excessively
religious, and as knowing more than other people. Such persons, then,
using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to of
their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the
disease is sacred...

For, if they imitate a goat, or grind their teeth, or if their right
side be convulsed, they say that the mother of the gods is the cause.
But if they speak in a sharper and more intense tone, they resemble this
state to a horse, and say that Poseidon is the cause. Or if any
excrement be passed, which is often the case, owing to the violence of
the disease, the appellation of Enodia is adhibited; or, if it be passed
in smaller and denser masses, like bird's, it is said to be from Apollo
Nomius. But if foam be emitted by the mouth, and the patient kick with
his feet, Ares then gets the blame. But terrors which happen during the
night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful
apparitions, and fleeing away,-all these they hold to be the plots of
Hecate, and the invasions the and use purifications and incantations,
and, as appears to me, make the divinity to be most wicked and most
impious."
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html

Thomas Andrews

07-30-2004, 11:10 AM

>>There are 2000+ plus gods that have been
>>worshiped all with conflicting attributes. They
>>CANNOT all exist. Even the most fundamental
>>theists concede that.
>
>
> "They who first referred this malady to the gods appear to me to have
> been just such persons as the conjurors, purificators, mountebanks, and
> charlatans now are, who give themselves out for being excessively
> religious, and as knowing more than other people. Such persons, then,
> using the divinity as a pretext and screen of their own inability to of
> their own inability to afford any assistance, have given out that the
> disease is sacred...
>
> For, if they imitate a goat, or grind their teeth, or if their right
> side be convulsed, they say that the mother of the gods is the cause.
> But if they speak in a sharper and more intense tone, they resemble this
> state to a horse, and say that Poseidon is the cause. Or if any
> excrement be passed, which is often the case, owing to the violence of
> the disease, the appellation of Enodia is adhibited; or, if it be passed
> in smaller and denser masses, like bird's, it is said to be from Apollo
> Nomius. But if foam be emitted by the mouth, and the patient kick with
> his feet, Ares then gets the blame. But terrors which happen during the
> night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful
> apparitions, and fleeing away,-all these they hold to be the plots of
> Hecate, and the invasions the and use purifications and incantations,
> and, as appears to me, make the divinity to be most wicked and most
> impious."
> http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html
>

I love Hippocrates. So ahead of his time.

"People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any
idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand
what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that
it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."
- Hippocrates

Craig S.

07-30-2004, 11:32 AM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cedodm$src$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

> I love Hippocrates. So ahead of his time.
>
> "People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any
> idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand
> what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that
> it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe."
> - Hippocrates

Many people are much slower in coming to that conclusion. Perhaps one key
is simply changing our understanding of what accounts for "divine."

neuro equipoise

07-30-2004, 12:17 PM

On - Fri, Jul 30, 2004, 4:10pm (EDT+5) ThomasAndrews@nospam.com
(Thomas*Andrews) wrote:

> I love Hippocrates. So ahead of his time.

"And in this disease as in all others, he must strive not to feed the
disease, but endeavor to wear it out by administering whatever is most
opposed to each disease, and not that which favors and is allied to it.
For by that which is allied to it, it gains vigor and increase, but it
wears out and disappears under the use of that which is opposed to it."

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.html

Robert McGregor

07-30-2004, 03:47 PM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cedgv8$hrc$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>I'm glad you are amused. But what 'faith' exactly have I
> >
> > demonstrated?
> >
> > You demonstrated faith in your conjecture as to what babies
believe,
>
> Well now. It's an opinion.

>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
> KNOW this as a fact.

You presented it as fact

>However it is logical to presume that one does not
> believe something until they have been introduced to that concept.

That's an expression of your faith.

>
> I'm sure you would agree babies are not born with a knowledge of
> Shakespeare, it's just common sense and it's absurd to suggest
> otherwise. Not faith.

I did not realise Shakespeare is believed to be a supreme living
being.

>
> In fact I am amused at the concept of a 2 day old Christian or
Muslim or
> Hindu or whatever.
>
> > also demonstrated faith that man invented Gods prior to God/s
> > inventing man.
> >
>
> There are 2000+ plus gods that have been worshiped all with
conflicting
> attributes.

>They CANNOT all exist.

Another demonstration of your faith

>Even the most fundamental theists
> concede that.

Another demonstration of your faith

>
> It's not faith to say that man invented god because it's not my
> unwaivering belief. My opinion on these matters are subject to
change
> pending further evidence.

Your "Before man invented gods" was presented as fact.

>
>
> >
> >
> >>The only proselytizing I have done is on the correct usage of a
> >>particular work. Frankly I could not care less what 'space
pixies'
> >
> > or
> >
> >>gods you choose believe in. :)
> >
> >
> > You have clearly proselytised your faith regarding what you
believe
> > babies don't believe.
> >
> >
> >>The prefix 'A' in atheist is Greek for 'not'. So atheist
literally
> >
> > means
> >
> >>'not theist'. Therefore anyone who lacks theistic belief
(including
> >>babies) is by definition an atheist.
> >
> >
> > In the Oxford dictionary, the Greek prefix "A" translates as
> > "without," while Atheism is defined as a belief or theory. In at
> > least one online dictionary, atheist is defined as "One who
> > disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods." Do you
> > speculate that all babies are into disbelief and denial, or
merely
> > pre-occupied with theory?
> >
>
> I speculate that because babies have not been introduced to
religion
> that they are 'without theism' - atheists.

Nevertheless, you presented your speculation as fact.

>
> "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods."
certainly
> encompasses a particular type of atheist but not all atheists.
>
> How many atheists have you spoken to?

That's an absurd question. If God is everywhere, no one is without
God.

However, may God still bless you, regardless.

Bob

Thomas Andrews

07-30-2004, 08:59 PM

>>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
>>KNOW this as a fact.
>
>
> You presented it as fact
>

No I did not. I stated an opinion.

>
>
>>However it is logical to presume that one does not
>>believe something until they have been introduced to that concept.
>
>
> That's an expression of your faith.
>

It's NOT faith because I will change my opinion given evidence to the
contrary... Got any?

>>I'm sure you would agree babies are not born with a knowledge of
>>Shakespeare, it's just common sense and it's absurd to suggest
>>otherwise. Not faith.
>
>
> I did not realise Shakespeare is believed to be a supreme living
> being.

We are talking about knowledge and belief.

What is your definition of supreme being anyway?

And can you give me evidence that babies know/believe in said being
before being taught about it in Sunday school?

Didn't think so.

>
>
>>In fact I am amused at the concept of a 2 day old Christian or
>
> Muslim or
>
>>Hindu or whatever.
>>
>>
>>There are 2000+ plus gods that have been worshiped all with
conflicting attributes.
>>They CANNOT all exist.
>
>
> Another demonstration of your faith

It's not faith. Christianity precludes the existence of Allah Etc Etc.
If one so called Gawd/Supreme Being exists the other cannot. It's a
fact. You might as well argue for the existence of a square circle!

>
>
>>Even the most fundamental theists
>>concede that.
>
>
> Another demonstration of your faith
>

See above.

>
>
>>It's not faith to say that man invented god because it's not my
>>unwaivering belief. My opinion on these matters are subject to
>
> change
>
>>pending further evidence.
>
>
> Your "Before man invented gods" was presented as fact.

1. We KNOW man exists.
2. We do NOT know that god(s) exist(s).

If you cannot prove that god(s) exist then no faith is required to make
the above statement.

>>I speculate that because babies have not been introduced to
>
> religion
>
>>that they are 'without theism' - atheists.
>
>
> Nevertheless, you presented your speculation as fact.
>

See above... Atheism is default until theism is proved.

>>"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or Gods."
>
> certainly
>
>>encompasses a particular type of atheist but not all atheists.
>>
>>How many atheists have you spoken to?
>
>
> That's an absurd question. If God is everywhere, no one is without
> God.

That is a big IF. A declaration of FAITH on your part perhaps?

>
> However, may God still bless you, regardless.
>

Which god? :)

Robert McGregor

07-30-2004, 09:35 PM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ceequ9$avi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
> >>KNOW this as a fact.
> >
> >
> > You presented it as fact
> >
>
> No I did not. I stated an opinion.
>

I agree you stated opinion. Nevertheless, you did present you opinion
as fact.

However, it was amusing, for a while, watching you spend time time
and effort with, what you claim to be without.

Bob

H.P. Gawd

07-30-2004, 10:19 PM

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:59:55 +0100, Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com>
wrote:

> >>Even the most fundamental theists
> >>concede that.
> >
> >
> > Another demonstration of your faith
> >
>
>See above.

Thomas, you are arguing with a demagog. It's
pointless. From now on he will simply call
EVERY word you say "faith" and that will be it.

Not much use of trying to talk logic to such
people.

HP-G

Ron

07-30-2004, 10:27 PM

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:47:26 +1000, Robert McGregor
<robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message

>> However it is logical to presume that one does not believe something
>> until they have been introduced to that concept.

> That's an expression of your faith.

That's an example of how easy it is to reduce the english language to
absurdities.

--
AB5DB9CC

Robert McGregor

07-30-2004, 10:50 PM

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:gsDOc.218745$XM6.197265@attbi_s53...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 05:47:26 +1000, Robert McGregor
> <robert_mcgregor@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >> However it is logical to presume that one does not believe
something
> >> until they have been introduced to that concept.
>
> > That's an expression of your faith.
>
> That's an example of how easy it is to reduce the english language
to
> absurdities.
>
> --

I guess the poor fellow would have trouble with concepts, if has
never had an original thought!

Bob;-)

Virtualoso

07-30-2004, 11:19 PM

yardleymj@yahoo.ca (Michael Yardley) wrote in message news:<858bd3a9.0407291852.30714c23@posting.google.com>...
> Atheism is really the only true religion if you like, as it is the
> truth.

It sure IS a Religion. Often found in various cult subsets of the
Scientismist Religion.

> All religions and cult's are lies and based on none truth's.
> .... All religious AA
> Er's hate atheist's, but there are many in AA.

Of course, that isn't true. It's one of the religious lies of the
Scientismist Atheist Cult, so that they can pretend to be persecuted
and self-righteously superior.

> Higher power is what you want it to be.

Says who?

> Personally I hate Christian's as they are all
> phonies and they expect you to believe their crap.
> The Big Book, Jesus and Bible are a pile of bullshit.

As is so characteristic of the Scientismist Atheistic Cults, most
thing eventually (and often rather quickly) deteriorate to their
basic, central outlook -- which is a religious bigotry, also often
bitter and adversarial.

> We all have one
> thing in common. We are trying to stop drinking and get improvement in
> our life's. Just go to meeting's.

"We", kimosabe? Some Of Us have stopped "trying" to stop drinking and
have the problem solved. If you want what the Ghodless Tryers have,
keep going to their meetings again and again and again and . . .
Voila'! That's what they have!

Thomas Andrews

07-31-2004, 05:35 AM

H.P. Gawd wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 01:59:55 +0100, Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Even the most fundamental theists
>>>>concede that.
>>>
>>>
>>>Another demonstration of your faith
>>>
>>
>>See above.
>
>
> Thomas, you are arguing with a demagog. It's
> pointless. From now on he will simply call
> EVERY word you say "faith" and that will be it.
>
> Not much use of trying to talk logic to such
> people.
>
> HP-G
>

I know I'm a bit of a sado-masochist. For some reason it's fun to bang
my head of a brick wall.

Christopher A. Lee

07-31-2004, 05:57 AM

On 30 Jul 2004 20:19:24 -0700, virtualoso@sbcglobal.net (Virtualoso)
wrote:

>yardleymj@yahoo.ca (Michael Yardley) wrote in message news:<858bd3a9.0407291852.30714c23@posting.google.com>...
>> Atheism is really the only true religion if you like, as it is the
>> truth.
>
>It sure IS a Religion. Often found in various cult subsets of the
>Scientismist Religion.

Only if you also imagine that not believing in the Easter Bunny is a
religion, moron.

Thomas Andrews

07-31-2004, 09:23 AM

Robert McGregor wrote:

> "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ceequ9$avi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
>>
>> >>KNOW this as a fact.
>> >
>> >
>> > You presented it as fact
>> >
>>
>>No I did not. I stated an opinion.
>>
>
>
> I agree you stated opinion. Nevertheless, you did present you opinion
> as fact.

I cannot help how you interpret my words.

Let me make it crystal clear for you.

1. Atheism is simply a lack of theism - FACT
2. Babies do not hold religious beliefs partly owing to their lack of
cognitive skills and reasoning abilities; and also due to them not being
introduced to religion until a later age. - PREMISE
---
3. Babies are therefore WITHOUT THEISM ergo they are *Atheists* - CONCLUSION

If you have any evidence to overturn my premise I will withdraw my
earlier statement that babies are atheists.

Just out of curiosity, what particular brand of theism are you proposing
that babies are naturally born with?

>
> However, it was amusing, for a while, watching you spend time time
> and effort with, what you claim to be without.
>

Like I said in another post, I'm doing this for fun - It is still
amusing for me to watch you duck, weave and ignore my questions.

Robert McGregor

07-31-2004, 10:45 AM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ceg6g7$ftm$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> Robert McGregor wrote:
>
> > "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:ceequ9$avi$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>>>It's not faith because I accept that I do not
> >>
> >> >>KNOW this as a fact.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You presented it as fact
> >> >
> >>
> >>No I did not. I stated an opinion.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I agree you stated opinion. Nevertheless, you did present you
opinion
> > as fact.
>
> I cannot help how you interpret my words.
>
> Let me make it crystal clear for you.

Why, it was always crystal clear
>
> 1. Atheism is simply a lack of theism - FACT

Your apparant fascination with theism could hardly be called a lack
of theism.

> 2. Babies do not hold religious beliefs partly owing to their lack
of
> cognitive skills and reasoning abilities; and also due to them not
being
> introduced to religion until a later age. - PREMISE

The FACT that babies howl cannot indicate belief in a power greater
than themselves?

> ---
> 3. Babies are therefore WITHOUT THEISM ergo they are *Atheists* -
CONCLUSION

Didn't you say that's opinion?

>
> If you have any evidence to overturn my premise I will withdraw my
> earlier statement that babies are atheists.

Should I mind that you continue expressing your faith here?

>
> Just out of curiosity, what particular brand of theism are you
proposing
> that babies are naturally born with?

Jeez, I only proposed once, and it wasn't on Usenet. She accepted, we
married, and memory of the disastrous consequences has proven to keep
me off gambling for decades, so far! Have you already forgotten it
was you that did the proposing here? Persistent, aren't you:-(
Nevertheless, even if you were female, you would remain rejected!

>
> >
> > However, it was amusing, for a while, watching you spend time
time
> > and effort with, what you claim to be without.
> >
>
> Like I said in another post, I'm doing this for fun - It is still
> amusing for me to watch you duck, weave and ignore my questions.

Having only noticed the faith expressed in your posts, what
questions?

Bob

Thomas Andrews

07-31-2004, 12:20 PM

>
>>1. Atheism is simply a lack of theism - FACT
>
>
> Your apparant fascination with theism could hardly be called a lack
> of theism.

I am an atheist. Are you suggesting that just because I posses attribute
X therefore so do all atheists? That is a pathetically weak argument.

I lack theism.

Even if I was fascinated by theism, that is neither here nor there. I am
still an atheist for only one reason - because I lack theism.

If atheism is a belief system then baldness is a hair colour! And not
believing in Father Christmas is a religion too.

>
>
>>2. Babies do not hold religious beliefs partly owing to their lack
>
> of
>
>>cognitive skills and reasoning abilities; and also due to them not
>
> being
>
>>introduced to religion until a later age. - PREMISE
>
>
> The FACT that babies howl cannot indicate belief in a power greater
> than themselves?

What are you babbling about now? I believe in powers greater than myself
- the sun for example, without it I would die. Does not mean I worship
it as a deity. You are confusing two very different things.

>
>
>>---
>>3. Babies are therefore WITHOUT THEISM ergo they are *Atheists* -
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> Didn't you say that's opinion?
>

An opinion with a rational basis. You are free to disagree but if you
can't do so with a reasonable coherent argument I will continue to laugh
in your face.

>
>>If you have any evidence to overturn my premise I will withdraw my
>>earlier statement that babies are atheists.
>
>
> Should I mind that you continue expressing your faith here?
>

What faith? I do not have faith because my beliefs change in light of
new evidence. That is not faith, it is called reason.

You are starting to sound like a stuck record. If you’re going to accuse
me of having faith again, please back it up.

In answer to your question, I don't care if you mind what I say or not,
although I have to wonder why you keep responding if you don't.

>
>>Just out of curiosity, what particular brand of theism are you
>
> proposing
>
>>that babies are naturally born with?
>
>
> Jeez, I only proposed once, and it wasn't on Usenet. She accepted, we
> married, and memory of the disastrous consequences has proven to keep
> me off gambling for decades, so far! Have you already forgotten it
> was you that did the proposing here? Persistent, aren't you:-(
> Nevertheless, even if you were female, you would remain rejected!

How cute, duck and weave, duck and weave!

>
>
>> >
>> > However, it was amusing, for a while, watching you spend time
>
> time
>
>> > and effort with, what you claim to be without.
>> >
>>
>>Like I said in another post, I'm doing this for fun - It is still
>>amusing for me to watch you duck, weave and ignore my questions.
>
>
> Having only noticed the faith expressed in your posts, what
> questions?

Again, what faith?

But here are the questions you have avoided so far:

1. What theism are babies are naturally born with?
2. What is your definition of supreme being/god/higher power?
3. Got any evidence / rational thoughts to challenge my premise?
4. Can you give me evidence that babies know/believe in god(s) before
being taught in Sunday School?
5. Which god do you worship?
6. How many atheists have you spoken to?

Michael Yardley

07-31-2004, 02:01 PM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

3 entries found for atheism.
a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless :
a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

atheism

\A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or
denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite
awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.

Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded. --Shipley.

2. Godlessness.

[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness]
[ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Welcome to The Atheism WebThe Atheism Web. A shared resource for
atheists, agnostics and freethinkers on the Internet. Brought to you
by The Internet Infidels ...
www.infidels.org/news/atheism/ - 4k - 29 Jul 2004 - Cached - Similar
pages

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBCvEDmDjmjRYP4HgRAlzyAJ4p7qSDWAyBnb46Z8HtEG JVv/T7pACfWMjy
d5yDnhbcMr38DJ7xvOGWYZU=
=8ZaZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Virtualoso

07-31-2004, 03:41 PM

> > Like I said in another post, I'm doing this for fun - It is still
> > amusing for me to watch you duck, weave and ignore my questions.

What great fun: watching your questions go unanswered. Yes, such a
rewarding and satisfying amusement.

> Having only noticed the faith expressed in your posts, what
> questions?

The one question submitted:

"Just out of curiosity, what particular brand of theism are you
proposing
that babies are naturally born with?"

Now the riotous fun continues as we watch in high amusement while the
loaded, contentiously projected, clumsily sarcastic rhetorical
question goes unanswered and possibly entirely dismissed as
undeserving of anything more. What a riot.

Blue Moon

07-31-2004, 06:10 PM

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:17:30 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any god(s)'.

That would be "agnostic".

>Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this way -
>all babies are born atheists.

No, they'd be born "agnostic".

--
Blue Moon

Blue Moon

07-31-2004, 06:13 PM

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:03:37 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>I speculate that because babies have not been introduced to religion
>that they are 'without theism' - atheists.

One has to be introduced to religion to believe in anything?

--
Blue Moon

H.D.S

07-31-2004, 06:19 PM

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:vmqmg0d3b3i1allusb1io42oqfqpu87o8s@4ax.com:

> On 30 Jul 2004 20:19:24 -0700, virtualoso@sbcglobal.net (Virtualoso)
> wrote:
>
>>yardleymj@yahoo.ca (Michael Yardley) wrote in message
>>news:<858bd3a9.0407291852.30714c23@posting.google.com>...
>>> Atheism is really the only true religion if you like, as it is the
>>> truth.
>>
>>It sure IS a Religion. Often found in various cult subsets of the
>>Scientismist Religion.
>
> Only if you also imagine that not believing in the Easter Bunny is a
> religion, moron.
>

Or my favorite:

"If you consider bald a hair color"

Blue Moon

07-31-2004, 06:19 PM

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:20:58 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>If atheism is a belief system then baldness is a hair colour!

Not so. Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. Baldness is
a lack of hair.

>What faith? I do not have faith because my beliefs change in light of
>new evidence. That is not faith, it is called reason.
>
>You are starting to sound like a stuck record. If you’re going to accuse
>me of having faith again, please back it up.

Sounds like you have faith in "reason", no?

--
Blue Moon

David M

07-31-2004, 06:28 PM

Blue Moon wrote:

> Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. Baldness is
a
> lack of hair.

Which, if there *were* a God, would not happen. Ipso facto!
;-)

Blue Moon

07-31-2004, 06:39 PM

On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:28:02 -0500, "David M" <dhmce@insightbb.com>
wrote:

>Blue Moon wrote:
>
>> Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. Baldness is
>a
>> lack of hair.
>
>Which, if there *were* a God, would not happen.

How on earth did you reach that conclusion?

--
Blue Moon

Robert McGregor

07-31-2004, 07:27 PM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ceggt9$olq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>1. Atheism is simply a lack of theism - FACT
> >
> >
> > Your apparant fascination with theism could hardly be called a
lack
> > of theism.
>
> I am an atheist. Are you suggesting that just because I posses
attribute
> X therefore so do all atheists? That is a pathetically weak
argument.

Ok. Your apparant fascination (if not obsession) with God can not be
called a lack of God.

>
> I lack theism.

Seems with all your twaddle you remain unable to prove that God is
not where AA claims God is, within you; however strident your protest
to the contrary.

>
> Even if I was fascinated by theism, that is neither here nor there.
I am
> still an atheist for only one reason - because I lack theism.

Prove it.

>
> If atheism is a belief system then baldness is a hair colour!

You have been systematically proselytising your belief right here.
That's demonstrably an expression of faith.

>And not
> believing in Father Christmas is a religion too.

Really? You can you prove Christmas is female?

>
> >
> >
> >>2. Babies do not hold religious beliefs partly owing to their
lack
> >
> > of
> >
> >>cognitive skills and reasoning abilities; and also due to them
not
> >
> > being
> >
> >>introduced to religion until a later age. - PREMISE
> >
> >
> > The FACT that babies howl cannot indicate belief in a power
greater
> > than themselves?
>
> What are you babbling about now?

Your babble, what else could it be?

>I believe in powers greater than myself
> - the sun for example, without it I would die. Does not mean I
worship
> it as a deity. You are confusing two very different things.

Really? Oh well, your confusion is apparantly not restricted to
merely two things

>
> >
> >
> >>---
> >>3. Babies are therefore WITHOUT THEISM ergo they are
*Atheists* -
> >
> > CONCLUSION
> >
> > Didn't you say that's opinion?
> >
>
> An opinion with a rational basis. You are free to disagree but if
you
> can't do so with a reasonable coherent argument I will continue to
laugh
> in your face.

Should I hold myself responsible for your committment to your faith?
>
> >
> >>If you have any evidence to overturn my premise I will withdraw
my
> >>earlier statement that babies are atheists.
> >
> >
> > Should I mind that you continue expressing your faith here?
> >
>
> What faith? I do not have faith because my beliefs change in light
of
> new evidence. That is not faith, it is called reason.

You don't have faith in your reason? What a dillemma. No wonder your
obsessed about God.
>
> You are starting to sound like a stuck record.

Wow, and we're both on the record, too.

>If you’re going to accuse
> me of having faith again, please back it up.

With all this bandwidth as you faithfully expound what you don't
have, I can hardly accuse thou of little faith!

>
> In answer to your question, I don't care if you mind what I say or
not,
> although I have to wonder why you keep responding if you don't.

I haven't minded responding to your persostent responses either.

>
> >
> >>Just out of curiosity, what particular brand of theism are you
> >
> > proposing
> >
> >>that babies are naturally born with?
> >
> >
> > Jeez, I only proposed once, and it wasn't on Usenet. She
accepted, we
> > married, and memory of the disastrous consequences has proven to
keep
> > me off gambling for decades, so far! Have you already forgotten
it
> > was you that did the proposing here? Persistent, aren't you:-(
> > Nevertheless, even if you were female, you would remain
rejected!
>
> How cute, duck and weave, duck and weave!

I suppose some would say you are cute in that respect.
>
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> > However, it was amusing, for a while, watching you spend time
> >
> > time
> >
> >> > and effort with, what you claim to be without.
> >> >
> >>
> >>Like I said in another post, I'm doing this for fun - It is
still
> >>amusing for me to watch you duck, weave and ignore my questions.
> >
> >
> > Having only noticed the faith expressed in your posts, what
> > questions?
>
> Again, what faith?

Oh, I didn't make it clear enough for you? Your faith.
>
> But here are the questions you have avoided so far:
>
> 1. What theism are babies are naturally born with?

Born very young, I seem to have got old very quick, so I can't
remember back that far. Can you?

> 2. What is your definition of supreme being/god/higher power?

I define those as words in the English dictionary, but they may be in
other dictionaries too.

> 3. Got any evidence / rational thoughts to challenge my premise?

Which premise, and why should I challenge it?

> 4. Can you give me evidence that babies know/believe in god(s)
before
> being taught in Sunday School?

Unless all Muslims, Pantheists, Deists, Theists, and Seventh Day
Adventists, bother with Sunday School, isn't your perspective a
little narrow?

> 5. Which god do you worship?

Worship is probably an inapropriate choice of word to elicit the
response you appear to be seeking. I have found self worship to
ultimately be rather negative. Nevertheless, I did discover that the
tantric practice of worship enabled me to rise, above all else; for a
while anyway. To the expressed pleasure of the respective
worshipee's, I might add

> 6. How many atheists have you spoken to?

Jeez, with all this delightful free sex decadence, even for a
multicultural mixer such as myself, it's becoming increasingly
difficult to conclusively determine ethnic origins on sight, let
alone the faiths of all those I have spoken to. If you tell me how
many theists you have spoken to, I would merely put that down to the
superficiality of the faith you seem obsessed with expounding.

Have you suggested to your family they try Babble-Anon?

Bob, your amused co-babbler.

Ron

07-31-2004, 08:49 PM

On 31 Jul 2004 11:01:54 -0700, Michael Yardley <yardleymj@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

> Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
> The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
> Godlessness; immorality.

> Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite
> awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.

Ferocious immorality! Too funny.

From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911 Released April 15 1993) [devils]:

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the
nature of the Unknowable.
"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.
"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."
"Then why do you not become an atheist?"
"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."
"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."

--
AB5DB9CC

Colin Polyps

07-31-2004, 09:35 PM

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:5XaOc.52631$eM2.37648@attbi_s51...
> Agnosticism is no position at all. It's the same position as that held
> by a slug.

Agnosticism is a position taken when you don't know. Are you supposed to
take a position on something that you don't know? If someone asks me who won
the football game and I don't know, I can guess but I don't know. What you
don't know, you don't know! No amount of guessing or no amount of taking a
position on a subject will change the facts. No one knows. A lot guess,
speculate and say they know, but they don't. To state otherwise is stupid.

Ron

08-01-2004, 12:33 AM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:35:51 GMT, Colin Polyps <pop@goesthe.net> wrote:
> "Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
> news:5XaOc.52631$eM2.37648@attbi_s51...

>> Agnosticism is no position at all. It's the same position as that held
>> by a slug.
>
> Agnosticism is a position taken when you don't know.

What position is that?

> Are you supposed to take a position on something that you don't know?

I thought that's what you just said agnostics do.

Who will be a better president? Don't know? Don't vote then. Will
stopping at the red light guarantee you won't get in an accident? Don't
know? Drive right on through! Shit, if your definition of "knowledge"
is some kind of wierd vulcanesque sci-fi perfect logic fantasy, then I
don't *know* anything, and should just stay in bed! No wait, get out of
bed! No, aahh, I don't *know* what to do!

> If someone asks me who won the football game and I don't know, I can
> guess but I don't know. What you don't know, you don't know!

Whoahh, sloooowwww down, I can't keep up!

> No amount of guessing or no amount of taking a position on a subject
> will change the facts. No one knows. A lot guess, speculate and say
> they know, but they don't. To state otherwise is stupid.

You know that for certain?! I know you know I don't know what you know,
but you never do dunno, and sometimes you don't.

Why don't you start by familiarizing yourself with epistemology
(Descartes 1596-1650 perhaps). Then, when your knowledge of knowledge
reaches at least sophmoric hieghts, why don't you come back for some
more discussion; otherwise this whole conversation is just stupid.

--
AB5DB9CC

Robert McGregor

08-01-2004, 12:48 AM

"Ron" <can@the.spam> wrote in message
news:ro_Oc.66889$eM2.58014@attbi_s51...
>otherwise this whole conversation is just stupid.
>

Otherwise?

Bob

Thomas Andrews

08-01-2004, 09:31 AM

Blue Moon wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:20:58 +0100, Thomas Andrews
> <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If atheism is a belief system then baldness is a hair colour!
>
>
> Not so. Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. Baldness is
> a lack of hair.
>

Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. 'Without theism'.

Some atheists may hold belief in the non existence of particular gods.
E.g. Allah. But the only thing all atheists definitely have in common in
a lack of belief in ALL gods.

Of all the thousands of gods there are to choose from. I am atheistic to
only one more god than you :)

>
>>What faith? I do not have faith because my beliefs change in light of
>>new evidence. That is not faith, it is called reason.
>>
>>You are starting to sound like a stuck record. If you’re going to accuse
>>me of having faith again, please back it up.
>
>
> Sounds like you have faith in "reason", no?
>

'Faith in reason' is an oxymoron. So no.

Thomas Andrews

08-01-2004, 09:38 AM

Blue Moon wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:17:30 +0100, Thomas Andrews
> <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any god(s)'.
>
>
> That would be "agnostic".
>

No, a person who does not believe in gods is an atheist.

If they do not claim knowledge then they are an agnostic atheist.

Agnostic is not some kind of magic halfway house between atheism and
theism. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

It's a bit like saying you are either a human or a republican. You can
be both.

>
>>Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this way -
>>all babies are born atheists.
>
>
> No, they'd be born "agnostic".
>

Yes, born agnostic atheists. :)

Thomas Andrews

08-01-2004, 10:15 AM

> Ok. Your apparant fascination (if not obsession) with God can not be
> called a lack of God.
>
>
>>I lack theism.
>
>
> Seems with all your twaddle you remain unable to prove that God is
> not where AA claims God is, within you;

Prove it.

> however strident your protest
> to the contrary.
>

I'm not protesting you ignorant claims. There is no substance in them
to protest.

>
>>Even if I was fascinated by theism, that is neither here nor there.
>
> I am
>
>>still an atheist for only one reason - because I lack theism.
>
>
> Prove it.
>

I - DO - NOT - BELIEVE - IN - THE - FAIRYTALES - THAT - YOU - DO.

Deal with it.

>
>>If atheism is a belief system then baldness is a hair colour!
>
>
> You have been systematically proselytising your belief right here.
> That's demonstrably an expression of faith.

Great, demonstrate it then.

Put up or shut up.

>
>
>>And not
>>believing in Father Christmas is a religion too.
>
>
> Really? You can you prove Christmas is female?
>

BWAHAHAHAHA! Even Jesus is laughing at you now.

Please quote where I claimed Christmas had a gender.

>> > The FACT that babies howl cannot indicate belief in a power
>
> greater
>
>> > than themselves?
>>
>>What are you babbling about now?
>
>
> Your babble, what else could it be?

Perhaps you are just randomly changing the subject again in a weak and
desperate attempt to hide you own blatant contradictions.

>
>
>>I believe in powers greater than myself
>>- the sun for example, without it I would die. Does not mean I
>
> worship
>
>>it as a deity. You are confusing two very different things.
>
>
> Really? Oh well, your confusion is apparantly not restricted to
> merely two things
>

Your confusion apparently knows no bounds.

>>An opinion with a rational basis. You are free to disagree but if
>
> you
>
>>can't do so with a reasonable coherent argument I will continue to
>
> laugh
>
>>in your face.
>
>
> Should I hold myself responsible for your committment to your faith?
>

Yes, because my apparent faith is nothing more than a product of your
over active imagination.

>>But here are the questions you have avoided so far:
>>
>>1. What theism are babies are naturally born with?
>
>
> Born very young, I seem to have got old very quick, so I can't
> remember back that far. Can you?
>

Great, so you admit you are wrong and you have no idea what religion
babies have.

That's all I wanted to know.

>
>>2. What is your definition of supreme being/god/higher power?
>
>
> I define those as words in the English dictionary, but they may be in
> other dictionaries too.

What is this single "English Dictionary" of which you speak?

There are many English dictionaries, with many definitions for the same
word. I am asking what YOU mean when you talk about 'god'.

If you don't know then everything you say about god is void and without
meaning. Figures.

>
>
>>3. Got any evidence / rational thoughts to challenge my premise?
>
>
> Which premise, and why should I challenge it?
>

That babies are not born with superstitious beliefs.

>
>>4. Can you give me evidence that babies know/believe in god(s)
>
> before
>
>>being taught in Sunday School?
>
>
> Unless all Muslims, Pantheists, Deists, Theists, and Seventh Day
> Adventists, bother with Sunday School, isn't your perspective a
> little narrow?

No. Just about every religious parent I know brainwashes and
indoctrinates their children as soon as they are old enough to talk.

>
>
>>5. Which god do you worship?
>
>
> Worship is probably an inapropriate choice of word to elicit the
> response you appear to be seeking. I have found self worship to
> ultimately be rather negative. Nevertheless, I did discover that the
> tantric practice of worship enabled me to rise, above all else; for a
> while anyway. To the expressed pleasure of the respective
> worshipee's, I might add
>

I'm sorry, you're confused again.

What is the name of your god? To what religion do you belong?

>
>>6. How many atheists have you spoken to?
>
>
> Jeez, with all this delightful free sex decadence, even for a
> multicultural mixer such as myself, it's becoming increasingly
> difficult to conclusively determine ethnic origins on sight, let
> alone the faiths of all those I have spoken to. If you tell me how
> many theists you have spoken to,

I have spoken to many many theists.

> I would merely put that down to the
> superficiality of the faith you seem obsessed with expounding.
>

Of course you would. But that would just confirm to me again that you
are a blithering idiot.

How about you actually challenge my words instead of calling them
meaningless names.

*sigh It seems HP was right.

Robert McGregor

08-01-2004, 11:10 AM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ceitu2$251$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> I - DO - NOT - BELIEVE - IN - THE - FAIRYTALES - THAT - YOU - DO.
>
> Deal with it.

You think you're a fairy?
No wonder you're obsessed.

Bye

Bob

Blue Moon

08-01-2004, 11:29 AM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:31:17 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>Blue Moon wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 17:20:58 +0100, Thomas Andrews
>> <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If atheism is a belief system then baldness is a hair colour!
>>
>>
>> Not so. Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. Baldness is
>> a lack of hair.
>>
>
>Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. 'Without theism'.

Well, you can try to rewrite the dictionaries if you want. But until
you do, they will continue to disagree with your sentiment:

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess
true atheism.

>Of all the thousands of gods there are to choose from. I am atheistic to
>only one more god than you :)

How do you reach this conclusion? You don't have a clue what I do or
don't believe.

>>>What faith? I do not have faith because my beliefs change in light of
>>>new evidence. That is not faith, it is called reason.
>>>
>>>You are starting to sound like a stuck record. If you’re going to accuse
>>>me of having faith again, please back it up.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like you have faith in "reason", no?
>>
>
>'Faith in reason' is an oxymoron. So no.

How do you conclude that "faith in reason" is an oxymoron?

I had faith that when I turned my computer on this morning, it would
actually work. I had faith in the ability of my electric company to
deliver power, and at the correct voltage. Does that mean the
electric company is God? Certainly not! Does that mean powercuts
don't happen? No. But on balance of probability, my reasoning drew
the conclusion that the power would be there. I have faith in that
reasoning.

--
Blue Moon

Thomas Andrews

08-01-2004, 11:30 AM

Robert McGregor wrote:
> "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ceitu2$251$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>I - DO - NOT - BELIEVE - IN - THE - FAIRYTALES - THAT - YOU - DO.
>>
>>Deal with it.
>
>
> You think you're a fairy?
> No wonder you're obsessed.
>
> Bye
>

BWAHAHAHA!

Skillfully snipped my good man. I'm not the one with the obsession.

Have a nice life anyway.

Blue Moon

08-01-2004, 11:31 AM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:15:36 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>BWAHAHAHAHA! Even Jesus is laughing at you now.

For all your bleating, from this it sounds like you believe in Jesus
more than Robert does.

--
Blue Moon

Blue Moon

08-01-2004, 11:34 AM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:38:04 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>Blue Moon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:17:30 +0100, Thomas Andrews
>> <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any god(s)'.
>>
>>
>> That would be "agnostic".
>>
>
>No, a person who does not believe in gods is an atheist.
>
>If they do not claim knowledge then they are an agnostic atheist.

Where the hell are you dredging up these redefinitions of the
dictionary?

If we cannot agree on the correct definition of a term, the rest of
the conversation about that term is futile.

--
Blue Moon

Robert McGregor

08-01-2004, 11:46 AM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cej2b8$lua$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk...
> Robert McGregor wrote:
> > "Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:ceitu2$251$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> >>I - DO - NOT - BELIEVE - IN - THE - FAIRYTALES - THAT - YOU - DO.
> >>
> >>Deal with it.
> >
> >
> > You think you're a fairy?
> > No wonder you're obsessed.
> >
> > Bye
> >
>
> BWAHAHAHA!
>
> Skillfully snipped my good man. I'm not the one with the obsession.

I'm an agnostic, but it was great fun yanking your chain, for a
while.

>
> Have a nice life anyway.

Thanks. I'm living on bonus time, thanks be to God(MP) and that is
nice.

Bob

Thomas Andrews

08-01-2004, 11:50 AM

Blue Moon wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:15:36 +0100, Thomas Andrews
> <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>BWAHAHAHAHA! Even Jesus is laughing at you now.
>
>
> For all your bleating, from this it sounds like you believe in Jesus
> more than Robert does.
>

*rolls eyes*

Thomas Andrews

08-01-2004, 12:07 PM

>>Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. 'Without theism'.
>
>
> Well, you can try to rewrite the dictionaries if you want. But until
> you do, they will continue to disagree with your sentiment:
>
> a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
> n.
> One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
>
> ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
> n.
>

Dictionaries contain multiple definitions of the word based on popular
usage. A lot of Religious people like to use the term to describe
satanists or people with no morals.

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness]
[ant: theism]

***2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods***

Atheism literally means "without theism". Go to alt.atheism if you want
a more in depth discussion on the matter.

> How do you conclude that "faith in reason" is an oxymoron?
>
> I had faith that when I turned my computer on this morning, it would
> actually work. I had faith in the ability of my electric company to
> deliver power, and at the correct voltage. Does that mean the
> electric company is God? Certainly not! Does that mean powercuts
> don't happen? No. But on balance of probability, my reasoning drew
> the conclusion that the power would be there. I have faith in that
> reasoning.
>

Again, faith can have more than one meaning. You could say that I have
faith in my dentist/doctor/friends/computer. But it is based on past
experience. Most importantly it is subject to change and revision.

When I talk about faith in a religious sense. I am talking about when
someone holds a belief based on a particular dogma. And will continue to
believe NO MATTER WHAT. They will hold to their faith despite and in
spite of and evidence to the contrary.

For example, fundamentalist Christians who have faith that the world is
6000 years old, say that God put dinosaur fossils in the ground to test
our us.

This kind of faith is certainly contrary to reason.

Thomas Andrews

08-01-2004, 12:16 PM

>
> Where the hell are you dredging up these redefinitions of the
> dictionary?
>

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness]
[ant: theism]

***2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods***

> If we cannot agree on the correct definition of a term, the rest of
> the conversation about that term is futile.
>

Like I said, there are many meanings to different words. This is the
definition used by myself and most people who call themselves atheists.

I do have an active disbelief in the Christian god and in Allah for
example because I feel they are self contradictory.

But I cannot say the same for ALL gods, many of which I might have never
heard of so definition 2 tends to be more compatible with how I feel
about all brands of theism.

Hope this clears things up.

Robert McGregor

08-01-2004, 04:51 PM

"Thomas Andrews" <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cej3fk$ovj$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
> Blue Moon wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 15:15:36 +0100, Thomas Andrews
> > <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>BWAHAHAHAHA! Even Jesus is laughing at you now.
> >
> >
> > For all your bleating, from this it sounds like you believe in
Jesus
> > more than Robert does.
> >
>
> *rolls eyes*

Jeez, along with your already demonstrated speaking "in tongues" the
eye rolling seems like you have a *bad* case of religiomania. Isn't
that called "charismatic" atheism?

Have you really been trying to turn *all* that woman's wine into
water?

Bob

Blue Moon

08-01-2004, 09:06 PM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:07:41 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. 'Without theism'.
>>
>> Well, you can try to rewrite the dictionaries if you want. But until
>> you do, they will continue to disagree with your sentiment:
>>
>> a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
>> n.
>> One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
>>
>> ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
>> n.
>
>Dictionaries contain multiple definitions of the word based on popular
>usage.

Indeed. So why do you have a problem with the popular usage of the
words "atheist" and "agnostic"?

>> How do you conclude that "faith in reason" is an oxymoron?
>>
>> I had faith that when I turned my computer on this morning, it would
>> actually work. I had faith in the ability of my electric company to
>> deliver power, and at the correct voltage. Does that mean the
>> electric company is God? Certainly not! Does that mean powercuts
>> don't happen? No. But on balance of probability, my reasoning drew
>> the conclusion that the power would be there. I have faith in that
>> reasoning.
>
>Again, faith can have more than one meaning. You could say that I have
>faith in my dentist/doctor/friends/computer. But it is based on past
>experience. Most importantly it is subject to change and revision.
>
>When I talk about faith in a religious sense. I am talking about when
>someone holds a belief based on a particular dogma. And will continue to
>believe NO MATTER WHAT. They will hold to their faith despite and in
>spite of and evidence to the contrary.

In this thread, this is the first time the word "faith" was used in
this context. I specifically asked you how you conclude that "faith
in reason" is an oxymoron. Your definition of faith is not the
definition of faith that was being discussed when that question was
posed.

So how about the faith of those who have a religious belief yet who
don't hold dogmatic notions?

--
Blue Moon

Virtualoso

08-01-2004, 09:20 PM

Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<vmqmg0d3b3i1allusb1io42oqfqpu87o8s@4ax.com>...
> On 30 Jul 2004 20:19:24 -0700, virtualoso@sbcglobal.net (Virtualoso)
> wrote:
>
> >yardleymj@yahoo.ca (Michael Yardley) wrote in message news:<858bd3a9.0407291852.30714c23@posting.google.com>...
> >> Atheism is really the only true religion if you like, as it is the
> >> truth.
> >
> >It sure IS a Religion. Often found in various cult subsets of the
> >Scientismist Religion.
>
> Only if you also imagine that not believing in the Easter Bunny is a
> religion, moron.

While that's one of the most parroted catechisms chanted by the
Scientismist Cultists, and apparently one of their articles of faith,
obviously it's a total non-sequiter aside from insisting that their
simile belief MUST be the Only One And True One.

Otherwise, the dictionary requires that "religion" includes a "belief
in an ultimate reality" and the Scientismist Religion and its various
sub-cults certainly do religiously believe in that, so very often
avidly proselytizing about it and their array of purely taken on faith
and the revelation of others tenets. Like you just did.

Virtualoso

08-01-2004, 09:22 PM

Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<cec07n$dli$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > Perhaps it is better to keep it simple.
> >
> > For me, the atheist is the one who believes <snip>
>
> Atheism is NOT a belief, it's a lack of belief.

So you religiously, zealously believe.

Blue Moon

08-01-2004, 09:22 PM

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:16:30 +0100, Thomas Andrews
<ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote:

>> Where the hell are you dredging up these redefinitions of the
>> dictionary?
>
>atheism
>
>n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness]
>[ant: theism]
>
>***2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods***
>
>
>
>> If we cannot agree on the correct definition of a term, the rest of
>> the conversation about that term is futile.
>>
>
>Like I said, there are many meanings to different words. This is the
>definition used by myself and most people who call themselves atheists.

"Most people"? You're expressing your beliefs again.

My belief is that you'll find most people who call themselves atheists
do not use that definition... they would apply that definition to
agnostics, not atheists.

I would classify myself as agnostic, not atheist. Atheism can be as
closed-minded as theism, being agnostic gives me freedom to explore.
For example, I can check out Zen, Taoism, Buddhism or Wicca without
being shackled to atheist beliefs.

>I do have an active disbelief in the Christian god and in Allah for
>example because I feel they are self contradictory.

How so?

I had many notions about "Christianity". Curiously, many of the
notions I had acquired do not seem to be written anywhere in the
Christian bible (as far as I've bothered to look, anyway). Many
people's concepts of what is or isn't "Christian" seems based on
either interpersonal experience (what another individual said or did)
or rationalisation of "unChristian", perhaps even criminal, behaviour
rather than on what would appropriately be defined as "Christianity".

So I conclude that most people in the world really don't understand
what "Christianity" is, even among those who profess to be
"Christian".

--
Blue Moon

Virtualoso

08-01-2004, 09:23 PM

Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<cec0ia$ek9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...
> H.P. Gawd wrote:
>
> > From here:
> > http://tinyurl.com/5se8p
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > What is atheism?
> >
> > Answer:
> >
> > No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> > not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
> > not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote
> > a belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. Atheism is
> > simply an adjective used to distinguish those of us who
> > don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any god(s)'.
>
> Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this way -
> all babies are born atheists.

Only if you Believe that only just your own personal concept of what
"god(s)" is/are is The Only Real And True concept, while also
reserving the term for your own unbelieved concepts and insisting that
these MUST be what everyone else is referring to, as well.

And that would be downright sociopathetic and very, very poor
thinking.

Virtualoso

08-01-2004, 09:27 PM

Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<cec8n4$pa9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any
> >
> > god(s)'.
> >
> >>Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this
> >
> > way -
> >
> >>all babies are born atheists.
> >
> >
> > With your demonstrated faith in conjecture, then your "think of it
> > this way," it's amusing to see you proselytising a belief.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
> I'm glad you are amused. But what 'faith' exactly have I demonstrated?
> The only proselytizing I have done is on the correct usage of a
> particular work. Frankly I could not care less what 'space pixies' or
> gods you choose believe in. :)
>
> The prefix 'A' in atheist is Greek for 'not'. So atheist literally means
> 'not theist'. Therefore anyone who lacks theistic belief (including
> babies) is by definition an atheist.
>
> What is it about this simple concept that people find so hard to understand?

You keep tripping over yourself in your own misunderstanding and
confusion with your own personal beliefs tangled into a suppose
absence of other persons' beliefs, but which you must not only
describe and define "for" them, or plain insist upon, but ridicule
also. All of which is especially ridiculous of you.

sAnToLiNa

08-01-2004, 10:47 PM

Virtualoso <virtualoso@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1fce47a6.0408011720.3a1c6178@posting.google.c om...
> Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<vmqmg0d3b3i1allusb1io42oqfqpu87o8s@4ax.com>...
> > On 30 Jul 2004 20:19:24 -0700, virtualoso@sbcglobal.net (Virtualoso)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >yardleymj@yahoo.ca (Michael Yardley) wrote in message
news:<858bd3a9.0407291852.30714c23@posting.google.com>...
> > >> Atheism is really the only true religion if you like, as it is the
> > >> truth.
> > >
> > >It sure IS a Religion. Often found in various cult subsets of the
> > >Scientismist Religion.
> >
> > Only if you also imagine that not believing in the Easter Bunny is a
> > religion, moron.
>
> While that's one of the most parroted catechisms chanted by the
> Scientismist Cultists, and apparently one of their articles of faith,
> obviously it's a total non-sequiter aside from insisting that their
> simile belief MUST be the Only One And True One.
>
> Otherwise, the dictionary requires that "religion" includes a "belief
> in an ultimate reality" and the Scientismist Religion and its various
> sub-cults certainly do religiously believe in that, so very often
> avidly proselytizing about it and their array of purely taken on faith
> and the revelation of others tenets. Like you just did.

Could you please restate this in something other than run-on sentences and
private meanings? I've had quite a lot to drink today and can't quite
cogitate it.

Ron

08-02-2004, 12:13 AM

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:47:04 -0700, sAnToLiNa <mystery@babylon.com> wrote:

> Virtualoso <virtualoso@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1fce47a6.0408011720.3a1c6178@posting.google.c om...

>> Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:<vmqmg0d3b3i1allusb1io42oqfqpu87o8s@4ax.com>...

>> > Only if you also imagine that not believing in the Easter Bunny is a
>> > religion, moron.
>>
>> While that's one of the most parroted catechisms chanted by the
>> Scientismist Cultists, and apparently one of their articles of faith,
>> obviously it's a total non-sequiter aside from insisting that their
>> simile belief MUST be the Only One And True One.
>>
>> Otherwise, the dictionary requires that "religion" includes a "belief
>> in an ultimate reality" and the Scientismist Religion and its various
>> sub-cults certainly do religiously believe in that, so very often
>> avidly proselytizing about it and their array of purely taken on faith
>> and the revelation of others tenets. Like you just did.
>
> Could you please restate this in something other than run-on sentences and
> private meanings? I've had quite a lot to drink today and can't quite
> cogitate it.

Miss Virt is quite taken by the word 'scientismist', as the poor girl
seems to believe it puts science and religion on equal footing. You
see, absolute certainty is impossible, the argument goes, so the only
reasonable approach is to discuss probabilities. To admit
possibilities. Yada yada. And since we're all just a bunch of hand
waving nincompoops who don't really know anything for certain, there's
no reason to prefer one world view over another.

Nonetheless, I'm sure Virt the flirt is just teasing when she pretends
to be more open minded than she is.

--
AB5DB9CC

Virtualoso

08-02-2004, 06:36 AM

Ron <can@the.spam> wrote in message news:<5cjPc.214085$JR4.192077@attbi_s54>...
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 19:47:04 -0700, sAnToLiNa <mystery@babylon.com> wrote:
>
> > Virtualoso <virtualoso@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:1fce47a6.0408011720.3a1c6178@posting.google.c om...
>
> >> Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > news:<vmqmg0d3b3i1allusb1io42oqfqpu87o8s@4ax.com>...
>
> >> > Only if you also imagine that not believing in the Easter Bunny is a
> >> > religion, moron.
> >>
> >> While that's one of the most parroted catechisms chanted by the
> >> Scientismist Cultists, and apparently one of their articles of faith,
> >> obviously it's a total non-sequiter aside from insisting that their
> >> simile belief MUST be the Only One And True One.
> >>
> >> Otherwise, the dictionary requires that "religion" includes a "belief
> >> in an ultimate reality" and the Scientismist Religion and its various
> >> sub-cults certainly do religiously believe in that, so very often
> >> avidly proselytizing about it and their array of purely taken on faith
> >> and the revelation of others tenets. Like you just did.
> >
> > Could you please restate this in something other than run-on sentences and
> > private meanings? I've had quite a lot to drink today and can't quite
> > cogitate it.
>
> Miss Virt is quite taken by the word 'scientismist', as the poor girl
> seems to believe it puts science and religion on equal footing. You
> see, absolute certainty is impossible, the argument goes, so the only
> reasonable approach is to discuss probabilities. To admit
> possibilities. Yada yada. And since we're all just a bunch of hand
> waving nincompoops who don't really know anything for certain, there's
> no reason to prefer one world view over another.

Quick, quick... attach the messenger. Head for the Ad Hom! Pretend
what their outlook is so that you can attack your phantom foe of your
own imagining.

Meanwhile:

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that
only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim
and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or
meaningless. This view seems to have been held by Ludwig Wittgenstein
in his Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (1922) when he said such things
as "The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural
science..." He later repudiated this view.

In the weak sense, scientism is the view that the methods of the
natural sciences should be applied to any subject matter.

The Skeptics Dictionary

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching
knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about
the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the
empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in
much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects
science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees
it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical,
philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim
cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism
sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

- PBS

Scientism usually means the acceptance of scientific theory and
scientific methods as applicable in all fields of inquiry about the
world, including morality, ethics, art, and religion.

Here, science is held to be the ultimate recourse in questions of
public policy and even religion.

[and excerpted from "The Shamans of Scientism" by Michael Shermer,
Scientific American]

"Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural
explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal
speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars
of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science."

"Scientism has generated a new literati and intelligentsia
passionately concerned with the profound philosophical, ideological
and theological implications of scientific discoveries."

"First, cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin
questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and
theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers
that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing
spiritual sustenance . . . Second, we are, at base, a socially
hierarchical primate species. We show deference to our leaders, pay
respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this
being the Age of Science, it is scientism's shamans who command our
veneration. Third, because of language we are also storytelling,
mythmaking primates, with scientism as . . . the premier mythmakers of
our time."

> Nonetheless, I'm sure Virt the flirt is just teasing when she pretends
> to be more open minded than she is.

"Open minded" obviously meaning in agreement with you, specifically.

Thomas Andrews

08-02-2004, 08:33 AM

>>n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness]
>>[ant: theism]
>>
>>***2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods***
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>If we cannot agree on the correct definition of a term, the rest of
>>>the conversation about that term is futile.
>>>
>>
>>Like I said, there are many meanings to different words. This is the
>>definition used by myself and most people who call themselves atheists.
>
>
> "Most people"? You're expressing your beliefs again.

Yes, my beliefs based on experience. Most atheists DO use my definition.
FACT.

>
> My belief is that you'll find most people who call themselves atheists
> do not use that definition... they would apply that definition to
> agnostics, not atheists.

You are wrong.

Go to

alt.atheism
atheism.about.com
www.infidels.org

Or search on google for other atheist resources.

You will find that most atheists use the second definition.

>
> I would classify myself as agnostic, not atheist. Atheism can be as
> closed-minded as theism, being agnostic gives me freedom to explore.
> For example, I can check out Zen, Taoism, Buddhism or Wicca without
> being shackled to atheist beliefs.
>
>
>>I do have an active disbelief in the Christian god and in Allah for
>>example because I feel they are self contradictory.
>
>
> How so?

Being omnipotent and omniscient for example.

But I'm not here to deconvert you. You continue to believe what you want
if you are happy. I don't care. There is more than enough information in
the above links if you want a proper critique of Christianity.

>
> I had many notions about "Christianity". Curiously, many of the
> notions I had acquired do not seem to be written anywhere in the
> Christian bible (as far as I've bothered to look, anyway). Many
> people's concepts of what is or isn't "Christian" seems based on
> either interpersonal experience (what another individual said or did)
> or rationalisation of "unChristian", perhaps even criminal, behaviour
> rather than on what would appropriately be defined as "Christianity".
>
> So I conclude that most people in the world really don't understand
> what "Christianity" is,

Let me guess, you do right?

even among those who profess to be
> "Christian".
>

I agree with you here, Christians are very fragmented these days. It's
become what I like to call a 'Pick 'N Mix' religion.

Thomas Andrews

08-02-2004, 08:36 AM

>>>From here:
>>>http://tinyurl.com/5se8p
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>>What is atheism?
>>>
>>>Answer:
>>>
>>>No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
>>>not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
>>>not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote
>>>a belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. Atheism is
>>>simply an adjective used to distinguish those of us who
>>>don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.
>>>--------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any god(s)'.
>>
>>Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this way -
>>all babies are born atheists.
>
>
>
> Only if you Believe that only just your own personal concept of what
> "god(s)" is/are is The Only Real And True concept,

It's funny you should mention that. Because I've never heard a
consistent coherent definition of the term 'god' from any theist.

It's a meaningless word, you might as well ask if one believes in a 'Blark'.

I'm an ABlarkist too, are you?

Thomas Andrews

08-02-2004, 08:44 AM

>>Dictionaries contain multiple definitions of the word based on popular
>>usage.
>
>
> Indeed. So why do you have a problem with the popular usage of the
> words "atheist" and "agnostic"?
>

If we are going to have a meaningful discussion, you need to understand
what *I* and most atheists mean by the word 'atheist'.

>>Again, faith can have more than one meaning. You could say that I have
>>faith in my dentist/doctor/friends/computer. But it is based on past
>>experience. Most importantly it is subject to change and revision.
>>
>>When I talk about faith in a religious sense. I am talking about when
>>someone holds a belief based on a particular dogma. And will continue to
>>believe NO MATTER WHAT. They will hold to their faith despite and in
>>spite of and evidence to the contrary.
>
>
> In this thread, this is the first time the word "faith" was used in
> this context. I specifically asked you how you conclude that "faith
> in reason" is an oxymoron. Your definition of faith is not the
> definition of faith that was being discussed when that question was
> posed.

Yes it was. Bob was trying to turn every statement I made into a
declaration of *faith*. Likening it to religious dogma.

The reason I object to this usage is because my beliefs are ALL subject
to change.

>
> So how about the faith of those who have a religious belief yet who
> don't hold dogmatic notions?
>

I have never encountered such people.

Eric Pepke

08-02-2004, 10:14 AM

"Lech K. Lesiak" <lklesiak@calcna.ab.ca> wrote in message news:<Pine.A41.4.05.10407290732580.35704-100000@srv1.calcna.ab.ca>...
> > No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> > not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
>
> I humbly beg to differ. Absolute, unqualified belief in the non-existence
> in a Supreme Being, First Cause, God, Yahweh, or whatever is as
> faith-based as the inchoate opinions of the most obnoxius tele-evangilist.

Of course, that isn't atheism.

You simply believe that's what atheism is because it lets you feel smug.

Eric Pepke

08-02-2004, 10:18 AM

Blue Moon <mfoco@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<256og059adbuj99v6kjkl8nkj6ge5i9a0c@4ax.com>...
> >Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this way -
> >all babies are born atheists.
>
> No, they'd be born "agnostic".

They are born agnostic *and* atheist. They are also born usually
without much hair and without adult teeth. They are born without
a fully developed visual cortex, with limited motor skills, without
object permanence, and with an incomplete suture in their heads.
They are born many things at once.

The only people who seem to have problem with this concept are
people with relatively ineffectual brains who believe that the
label "agnostic" confers on them some sort of logical superiority.

Thomas Andrews

08-02-2004, 10:56 AM

> I would classify myself as agnostic, not atheist. Atheism can be as
> closed-minded as theism, being agnostic gives me freedom to explore.
> For example, I can check out Zen, Taoism, Buddhism or Wicca without
> being shackled to atheist beliefs.
>

Sorry I just noticed this.

I am not shackled to 'atheist beliefs'. Because all atheist means is at
the MOMENT I hold no theistic beliefs.

I am open minded. I am free to check out all those religions too. If the
evidence is forthcoming I can take up one of those beliefs at any
moment. At that moment I would cease to be an atheist.

Michael Yardley

08-02-2004, 02:42 PM

Thomas Andrews <ThomasAndrews@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<celcgf$391$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >>>From here:
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/5se8p
> >>>
> >>>-------------------------------------------------------
> >>>What is atheism?
> >>>
> >>>Answer:
> >>>
> >>>No, it's not a faith. No, it's not a religion. No, it's
> >>>not a philosophy. No, it's not based on faith. No, it's
> >>>not a denial of your space pixie. No, it doesn't denote
> >>>a belief that your space pixie doesn't exist. Atheism is
> >>>simply an adjective used to distinguish those of us who
> >>>don't buy into space pixie fantasies from those who do.
> >>>--------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>
> >>Or more simply atheism is 'a lack of positive belief in any god(s)'.
> >>
> >>Before man invented gods everyone was an atheist. Think of it this way -
> >>all babies are born atheists.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was taught about God when I was in a kid in England and I was
brought up a Protestant. My next door neighbours where Catholic. I was
just never religious during my adult life and drinking life. I never
really thought about it until I started going to AA members trying to
sober up. I could just not handle the religion of AA. No matter what
you say it is Christian Based and try's to get you to believe in a
Christian God. i.e. Jesus and the Bible. I have been around the
program long enough to not talk about my believes in meetings as I do
not want to get the member's that believe in God to get upset and not
talk to me etc. The step's are suggestion's anyway. Me, I have never
got past step one. In the Westerner world we have freedom of religion.
My own view is that religion is all based on myths and speculation and
unfortunately none truth's. It is in fact all lie's used to manipulate
and control people. You can see from the Hubble that there is no
Heaven or Hell. They don't exist, it is all a state of mind. To
function in AA it is based to go to non religious meeting's and not
talk to much about the way you feel as it is a courtesy to the
religious members (the majority's it would seem.) In a newsgroup such
as this I do not think it is going to hurt anybody talking about non
religious belief's. In fact, I believe it does you some good as it get
it off your chest. When I died I suspect that I will just go into a
permanent sleep and that will be that. Where I live there is a next
door neighbour who sits on his computer in the Catholic newsgroups. I
talked to him about all the child molestation problem's the Catholic
Church has had and suggested that the Priest's should be married. He
said you cannot server to masters. In the mean time he spend all his
hours in the pornography site so the next women say's. With religion
you have to be real careful. Many criminal's hind behind it like a
Vail . They use it for money generation. As you can see I am very
sceptical about religion. In fact to tell you the truth I hate it.
They are phonies. But that is my personal view and it is not going to
effect the way AA operates. It should mean that I still go to AA as we
have a common problem with alcoholic. I have spent so much time
thinking about religion since I came to AA. I have got tired of
thinking about it any more. I am happy with my own belief's and try
not to talk about them to much in meetings. Hope I am making sense.
>>>>>

> >
> >
> >
> > Only if you Believe that only just your own personal concept of what
> > "god(s)" is/are is The Only Real And True concept,
>
> It's funny you should mention that. Because I've never heard a
> consistent coherent definition of the term 'god' from any theist.
>
> It's a meaningless word, you might as well ask if one believes in a 'Blark'.
>
> I'm an ABlarkist too, are you?