Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #1957798 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-11 09:58 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-08-12 12:35 +0800 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 99 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-08-11 10:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 13:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-11 23:26 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 00:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-11 13:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:58 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 19:23 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:13 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 20:57 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 12:39 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 15:26 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 07:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-12 17:49 -0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-12 18:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "W.TS." <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-12 20:55 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-12 19:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 13:23 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. rja.carnegie@gmail.com - 2015-08-13 14:10 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-12 19:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:53 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 23:58 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 15:56 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-13 14:20 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:39 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 23:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 16:15 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:30 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-15 05:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-13 15:53 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. walksalone <spamstopper@nerdshack.com> - 2015-08-13 16:39 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:24 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-14 12:08 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:17 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-14 04:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-08-14 12:53 +0100
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-14 06:54 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-14 14:16 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 07:51 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Mike M <mike@xenocyte.com> - 2015-08-15 06:41 +0000
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 16:11 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-08-15 03:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-15 18:48 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 10:33 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:47 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:34 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-08-13 13:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 13:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 17:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:41 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 15:08 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-12 20:04 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 15:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-12 07:29 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2015-08-11 20:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:55 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 16:00 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 07:51 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-13 20:49 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-13 09:46 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:18 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-14 03:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. niunian <niunian@ymail.com> - 2015-08-14 18:25 +0800
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2015-08-15 05:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 12:30 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 12:59 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 15:03 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 19:30 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 04:19 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-12 12:36 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. "W.TS." <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2015-08-12 20:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 21:20 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-12 10:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> - 2015-08-11 21:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-08-11 20:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-08-11 21:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. bilgat@m.nu - 2015-08-11 14:51 -0500
Re: Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2015-08-12 12:35 +0800
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 18:18 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqkf73$3bb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1959402 |
On 2015-08-13 09:46 PM, William December Starr wrote: > In article <mqi4cm$v8l$4@dont-email.me>, > niunian <niunian@ymail.com> said: > >>>> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose >>>> and reason like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the >>>> benefit doubt. Until then, you are just like any religious >>>> people having a personal god of your own without even >>>> consciously being aware of it. >>> >>> Wait. Where did anything to do with reasoning come into your claim >>> before now? Where did anything about 'the opposite of living every >>> day with a purpose is being a zombie' come into your claim before >>> now? >> >> It's rather simple logic. What exactly can't you understand? > > The part where you make the leap from "living your life every day > without purpose" to "being a walking dead zombie." Well, to me, they are the same thing. To me, only a zombie can live life without any purpose. Intelligent people would never be able to do that. The nature of human intelligence forbids that. > >>> And again, the claimed semantic equivalence of "purpose" and >>> "personal god" seems most dubious to me. >> >> Yea, right. It never occurs to you that God has always been with >> you who actually rules your life by giving you a purpose in life, >> does it? > > It probably was suggested to me long before it could occur to me on > its own, but either way I've filed it under "stuff that some people > believe, but I'm not aware of any reason for me to believe it." It's never my intention for you to believe what I said. I expect you to verify what I said with your own experience in life. > >> Well, that is what God does and that is what the word "God" means >> on the personal level. > > Does the word "God" mean the same thing in both of its appearances > in that sentence? The first usage looks likes a reference to a > self-aware, self-directed entity (e.g., the "God" or "The Lord" > character in the Christian Bible), while the second, though still > capitalized, looks like it's just the "anthropomorphizing" of a > concept, as in "The only god he believed in was money," which does > not imply that money is a thinking, acting being. > > -- wds > Well, there are all kinds of different gods for all kinds of different people to believe and follow. Some are more real than others, but there is only one true God.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 03:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gh5rsapdc66uosbhan7jb0tja6c0pdkr0a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1959253 |
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:00:32 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me> wrote: >Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason >like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt. >Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god >of your own without even consciously being aware of it. You appear to be so brainwashed by religion you are unable to conceive of being able to live without one. That certainly does nothing to validate your position. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | niunian <niunian@ymail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 18:25 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <mqkfk3$4mq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1960019 |
On 2015-08-14 03:19 PM, Attila < wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:00:32 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in > alt.atheism with message-id <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me> wrote: > >> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason >> like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt. >> Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god >> of your own without even consciously being aware of it. > > You appear to be so brainwashed by religion you are unable to conceive > of being able to live without one. That certainly does nothing to > validate your position. > Your mistake. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about life and its philosophical/spiritual meanings for everybody. It has nothing to do with what you believe or disbelieve. It's only about how everybody lives their life from a philosophical/spiritual point of view.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 05:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6s1usapj3h5s1bbls63enq21fi5hn7f7gg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1960096 |
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:25:14 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <mqkfk3$4mq$1@dont-email.me> wrote: >On 2015-08-14 03:19 PM, Attila < wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:00:32 +0800, niunian <niunian@ymail.com> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <mqhjkb$3v8$2@dont-email.me> wrote: >> >>> Prove to me that you live your life every day without purpose and reason >>> like a walking dead zombie, then I will give you the benefit doubt. >>> Until then, you are just like any religious people having a personal god >>> of your own without even consciously being aware of it. >> >> You appear to be so brainwashed by religion you are unable to conceive >> of being able to live without one. That certainly does nothing to >> validate your position. >> > >Your mistake. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about life and >its philosophical/spiritual meanings for everybody. It has nothing to do >with what you believe or disbelieve. It's only about how everybody lives >their life from a philosophical/spiritual point of view. That would be a small minority. Most people simply live. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor Ass. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 12:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqdbc5$jtf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1957817 |
On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>> >>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>> >>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>> science. >>> >>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>> belief in a god.) >>> >>> Stop spewing nonsense. >> >> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >> of an awkward position. > > Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" > atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking > a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at > least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. > > I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly > consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who > repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting > stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat > the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based > religion" bullshit. > What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and a thought- and conversation-starter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 12:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqdd2q$rgc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1957852 |
On 8/11/2015 12:48 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>> LaBourgeois >>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>> >>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>> >>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get >>>> out >>>> of an awkward position. >>> >>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>> >>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>> religion" bullshit. >>> >> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? > > Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a > "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. > For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively > believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure > faith. > > For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, > as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking > about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those > things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that > are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't. > > The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is > that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby. So fucking what? >> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and > > It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure. Nope. It's right on. You, however, are a write-off. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hukksah4mamsunlpk6qcnj0v8v14bepuac@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1957852 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>> >>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>> >>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>>> of an awkward position. >>> >>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>> >>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>> religion" bullshit. >>> >> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? > >Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a huh? >"strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. > For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >faith. since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in something then that statement is totally wrong, also that sounds a bit more like agnostic, sorry > >For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those I think you need help with the english language, no belief means there is no belief at all, quit spewing crap >things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that >are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't. U just are not making much sense > >The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is >that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby. no it means the person would rather do nothing than listen to you or you kind talking > > >> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and > >It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 19:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ri4lsatj0ddqfbrum3chggalf2sebccvu2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1958000 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:08:33 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >> >>> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>>>>> of an awkward position. >>>>> >>>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>>> >>>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>>>> religion" bullshit. >>>>> >>>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >>>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? >>> >>> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a >> >> huh? >> >> >>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. >>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >>> faith. >> >> >> since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in >> something then that statement is totally wrong, > >It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not, >cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of >something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for you. well as an atheist I more closely relate to what YOU would call a strong atheist... but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not strong agnostic.... I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods I am more stongly opposed to the fucking idiots that call themselves christians, because they are the fucking dumbest most destructive of them all > >>> >>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those >> >> I think you need help with the english language, > >No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on >the other hand...not so good. as a theist you are always going to believe in faries and goblins and ghosts and gouls and vampires and tinkerbell, so there is nothing I could ever say that would make any sense to someone that can even explain why they believe in those things
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 04:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vk3msat1lgfiqshu8m13ihgq2o2u4gsilq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1958183 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:32:46 -0700, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote: >On 8/11/2015 5:30 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:08:33 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >> >>> On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>>>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>>>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>>>>>>> of an awkward position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>>>>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>>>>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>>>>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>>>>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>>>>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>>>>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>>>>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>>>>>> religion" bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >>>>>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? >>>>> >>>>> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a >>>> >>>> huh? >>>> >>>> >>>>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. >>>>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >>>>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >>>>> faith. >>>> >>>> >>>> since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in >>>> something then that statement is totally wrong, >>> >>> It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not, >>> cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of >>> something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for you. >> >> >> well as an atheist I more closely relate to what YOU would call a >> strong atheist... > >In other words, yours is a faith-based position. You believe, >positively, that there is no god - not only that, but that there *can >be* no god. You believe that as a matter of pure faith. you really are an idiot . I K N O W there is no god, I know for sure, without a doubt > > >> but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not >> strong agnostic.... >> >> I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods> > >No, you believe something stronger than that. *I* am the one without a >belief in any god; you have a firm belief, an absolute faith-based >conviction, in "no god." You believe there *cannot* be any god. I for those with hearing problems I know there is no god, I dont believe there isnt I K N O W there isnt >don't believe that; I just don't believe in any representation of god >that has ever been presented to me. I am open to the (slim) possibility >that some representation of god may be made to me some day that I might >find convincing. You reject that out of hand. > yup cause I know there is no god > >> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods > >There! You admitted your faith. No I admit that Others should NOT BELIEVE in faries > >>>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >>>>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >>>>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those >>>> >>>> I think you need help with the english language, >>> >>> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on >>> the other hand...not so good. >> >> >> as a theist you > >No. I am not a theist. Once again, you fucked up. Whatever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 12:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <301nsa9r6i6bi582sks9cdlou89ee9d1pi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1958438 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:16:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza <LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote: >On 8/12/2015 2:19 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:32:46 -0700, Rudy Canoza >> <LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> >>> On 8/11/2015 5:30 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:08:33 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>>>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>>>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>>>>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>>>>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>>>>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>>>>>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>>>>>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >>>>>>>>>> of an awkward position. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>>>>>>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>>>>>>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>>>>>>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>>>>>>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>>>>>>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>>>>>>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>>>>>>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>>>>>>>> religion" bullshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >>>>>>>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a >>>>>> >>>>>> huh? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. >>>>>>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >>>>>>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >>>>>>> faith. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in >>>>>> something then that statement is totally wrong, >>>>> >>>>> It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not, >>>>> cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of >>>>> something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for you. >>>> >>>> >>>> well as an atheist I more closely relate to what YOU would call a >>>> strong atheist... >>> >>> In other words, yours is a faith-based position. You believe, >>> positively, that there is no god - not only that, but that there *can >>> be* no god. You believe that as a matter of pure faith. >> >> >> you really are an idiot > >Not in the least, and you don't even believe that. > >< I K N O W there is no god, I know for sure, >> without a doubt > >No, you don't. You couldn't possibly know it. You *believe* it - as a >matter of pure faith. > I am done with you troll PLONK! >>> >>> >>>> but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not >>>> strong agnostic.... >>>> >>>> I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods> >>> >>> No, you believe something stronger than that. *I* am the one without a >>> belief in any god; you have a firm belief, an absolute faith-based >>> conviction, in "no god." You believe there *cannot* be any god. I >> >> for those with hearing problems I know there is no god > >You don't know that. You can't. > >>> don't believe that; I just don't believe in any representation of god >>> that has ever been presented to me. I am open to the (slim) possibility >>> that some representation of god may be made to me some day that I might >>> find convincing. You reject that out of hand. >>> >> >> yup cause I know there is no god > >That's a lie. > >>> >>>> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods >>> >>> There! You admitted your faith. >> >> No I admit that > >No, you *did* admit your faith. Good job! What took you so long? > >>> >>>>>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >>>>>>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >>>>>>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you need help with the english language, >>>>> >>>>> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on >>>>> the other hand...not so good. >>>> >>>> >>>> as a theist you >>> >>> No. I am not a theist. Once again, you fucked up. >> >> Whatever > >Concession of defeat noted and accepted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "W.TS." <m14m@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 20:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA4F4D46DE43B2m14mearthlinknet@216.168.4.170> |
| In reply to | #1958660 |
Rudy Canoza <LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:mqg48i$975$9@dont-email.me: > On 8/12/2015 10:36 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:16:51 -0700, Rudy Canoza >> <LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> >>> On 8/12/2015 2:19 AM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:32:46 -0700, Rudy Canoza >>>> <LaLaLaLaLaLa@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/11/2015 5:30 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:08:33 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>> LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>>>> LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therese LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs nor science. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or >>>>>>>>>>>>> negative. Strong atheists believe there is no god. Weak >>>>>>>>>>>>> atheists don't believe in any god (a negative belief - >>>>>>>>>>>>> they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>>>>>>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed >>>>>>>>>>>> there was no God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God >>>>>>>>>>>> in case there is one, they believe they have no belief. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's a kind of self denial logic to get out of an awkward >>>>>>>>>>>> position. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are >>>>>>>>>>> "strong" atheists, believing there is no god; others are >>>>>>>>>>> "weak" atheists, lacking a belief *in* any god. It's still >>>>>>>>>>> *about* belief, generally, and at least for the weak >>>>>>>>>>> atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans >>>>>>>>>>> they wrongly consider to be catchy and witty, and that >>>>>>>>>>> includes militant atheists who repeatedly toss off the >>>>>>>>>>> three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>>>>>>>>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who >>>>>>>>>>> brainlessly repeat the marginally less snarky "atheism is >>>>>>>>>>> just another faith-based religion" bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to >>>>>>>>>> not collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a >>>>>>>>>> religion or such? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case >>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> huh? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't >>>>>>>>> invalid. >>>>>>>>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She >>>>>>>>> positively >>>>>>>>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a >>>>>>>>> matter of pure faith. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> since positively believing in something would mean they do >>>>>>>> believe in something then that statement is totally wrong, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does >>>>>>> not, cannot, exist. They positively believe in the >>>>>>> non-existence of something. That's not so hard to understand - >>>>>>> well, maybe it is for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> well as an atheist I more closely relate to what YOU would call a >>>>>> strong atheist... >>>>> >>>>> In other words, yours is a faith-based position. You believe, >>>>> positively, that there is no god - not only that, but that there >>>>> *can be* no god. You believe that as a matter of pure faith. >>>> >>>> >>>> you really are an idiot >>> >>> Not in the least, and you don't even believe that. >>> >>> < I K N O W there is no god, I know for sure, >>>> without a doubt >>> >>> No, you don't. You couldn't possibly know it. You *believe* it - >>> as a matter of pure faith. >>> >> >> I am done with you troll PLONK! > > Concession of defeat noted and accepted, and mocked as well. > >>>>> >>>>>> but you see the thing is I am a strong ATHEIST not >>>>>> strong agnostic.... >>>>>> >>>>>> I am an A-theist <without belief in a god or gods> >>>>> >>>>> No, you believe something stronger than that. *I* am the one >>>>> without a belief in any god; you have a firm belief, an absolute >>>>> faith-based conviction, in "no god." You believe there *cannot* >>>>> be any god. I >>>> >>>> for those with hearing problems I know there is no god >>> >>> You don't know that. You can't. >>> >>>>> don't believe that; I just don't believe in any representation of >>>>> god that has ever been presented to me. I am open to the (slim) >>>>> possibility that some representation of god may be made to me some >>>>> day that I might find convincing. You reject that out of hand. >>>>> >>>> >>>> yup cause I know there is no god >>> >>> That's a lie. >>> >>>>> >>>>>> I am firmly opposed to the belief in any gods >>>>> >>>>> There! You admitted your faith. >>>> >>>> No I admit that >>> >>> No, you *did* admit your faith. Good job! What took you so long? >>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief >>>>>>>>> in god, as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're >>>>>>>>> still talking about belief generally. Your beliefs in general >>>>>>>>> are not merely those >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you need help with the english language, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. >>>>>>> You, on the other hand...not so good. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> as a theist you >>>>> >>>>> No. I am not a theist. Once again, you fucked up. >>>> >>>> Whatever >>> >>> Concession of defeat noted and accepted. The next time you break a bone, avoid Doctors, pray instead. See how far it gets you. No prayer has ever been answered, not a one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 21:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqe6tc$tqr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1958000 |
On 2015-08-11 16:08, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >> >>> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>>>> LaBourgeois >>>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. >>>>>>> Strong >>>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them >>>>>>> is a >>>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there >>>>>> was no >>>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, >>>>>> they >>>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to >>>>>> get out >>>>>> of an awkward position. >>>>> >>>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, >>>>> lacking >>>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>>> >>>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they >>>>> wrongly >>>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant >>>>> atheists who >>>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not >>>>> collecting >>>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>>>> religion" bullshit. >>>>> >>>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >>>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? >>> >>> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a >> >> huh? >> >> >>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. >>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >>> faith. >> >> >> since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in >> something then that statement is totally wrong, > > It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not, > cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of > something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for you. > >>> >>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those >> >> I think you need help with the english language, > > No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on > the other hand...not so good. Do you have an external authority for the above opinion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 10:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqfjhf$62i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1958215 |
On 2015-08-12 01:35, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 6:20 PM, Carl Kaufmann wrote: >> On 2015-08-11 16:08, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 1:03 PM, bilgat@m.nu wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:48:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>>>>>> LaBourgeois >>>>>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. >>>>>>>>> Strong >>>>>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in >>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them >>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there >>>>>>>> was no >>>>>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, >>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to >>>>>>>> get out >>>>>>>> of an awkward position. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>>>>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, >>>>>>> lacking >>>>>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>>>>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they >>>>>>> wrongly >>>>>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant >>>>>>> atheists who >>>>>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not >>>>>>> collecting >>>>>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly >>>>>>> repeat >>>>>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>>>>>> religion" bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >>>>>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? >>>>> >>>>> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a >>>> >>>> huh? >>>> >>>> >>>>> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't >>>>> invalid. >>>>> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >>>>> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of >>>>> pure >>>>> faith. >>>> >>>> >>>> since positively believing in something would mean they do believe in >>>> something then that statement is totally wrong, >>> >>> It's not wrong. They positively believe that something does not, >>> cannot, exist. They positively believe in the non-existence of >>> something. That's not so hard to understand - well, maybe it is for >>> you. >>> >>>>> >>>>> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >>>>> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >>>>> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those >>>> >>>> I think you need help with the english language, >>> >>> No, I'm highly proficient in it, as well as logic and rhetoric. You, on >>> the other hand...not so good. >> >> Do you have an external authority for the above opinion? > > LOL! You're another never-serious posters, in a long and inglorious > line of them. Too funny. That may be so, but it doesn't nothing to verify your proficiency with English, logic, or rhetoric. See, I can be just as dismissive as you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 21:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqe6mb$tqr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1957852 |
On 2015-08-11 13:48, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>> LaBourgeois >>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>> science. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>> >>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>> >>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get >>>> out >>>> of an awkward position. >>> >>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>> >>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>> religion" bullshit. >>> >> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? > > Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a > "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. > For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively > believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure > faith. > > For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, > as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking > about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those > things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that > are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't. > > The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is > that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby. And being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have *any* beliefs, although I have seen plenty of theists who stupidly ask "Don't you believe in anything?" Using your paragraph above: For the "weak" aphilatelist, we can talk about a *lack* of a hobby of stamp collecting, as opposed to a positive hobby of "not stamp collecting" [avoiding stamps whenever/however possible and encouraging others to do the same], but we're still talking about hobbies generally. >> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and > > It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure. What, in fact, is so snarky about it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 20:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mqe714$lre$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1958211 |
On 8/11/2015 8:16 PM, Carl Kaufmann wrote: > On 2015-08-11 13:48, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >> On 8/11/2015 10:30 AM, Tom McDonald wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 10:43 AM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >>>>> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese >>>>>>> LaBourgeois >>>>>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>>>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>>>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>>>>> science. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. >>>>>> Strong >>>>>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>>>>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>>>>> belief in a god.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop spewing nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there >>>>> was no >>>>> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, >>>>> they >>>>> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get >>>>> out >>>>> of an awkward position. >>>> >>>> Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >>>> atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, >>>> lacking >>>> a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >>>> least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. >>>> >>>> I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >>>> consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists >>>> who >>>> repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >>>> stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >>>> the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >>>> religion" bullshit. >>>> >>> What's the problem, in your view, with comparing atheism to not >>> collecting stamps when the theist says atheism is a religion or such? >> >> Because in addition to the falsity of the analogy, in the case of a >> "strong" atheist, the analogy wouldn't hold even if it weren't invalid. >> For the strong atheist, atheism *is* a religion. She positively >> believes, but cannot prove, that there is no god. It's a matter of pure >> faith. >> >> For the "weak" atheist, we can talk about a *lack* of a belief in god, >> as opposed to a positive belief in "no god," but we're still talking >> about belief generally. Your beliefs in general are not merely those >> things in which you positively believe; we can talk about beliefs that >> are in your set of (positive) beliefs, and those that aren't. >> >> The reason the shopworn "not collecting stamps" snark is so shitty is >> that it doesn't mean you don't have *any* hobby. > > And being an atheist doesn't mean you don't have *any* beliefs, although > I have seen plenty of theists who stupidly ask "Don't you believe in > anything?" > > Using your paragraph above: > > For the "weak" aphilatelist, we can talk about a *lack* of a hobby of > stamp collecting, as opposed to a positive hobby of "not stamp > collecting" [avoiding stamps whenever/however possible and encouraging > others to do the same], but we're still talking about hobbies generally. > >>> Seems pretty pithy, accurate, and >> >> It's pure snark, and the analogy collapses in failure. > > What, in fact, is so snarky about it? > Interestingly, what she cut was my observation that the idea of talking about the analogy of non-stamp-collecting was devised as a conversation starter, not a conversation stopper. So she stopped the conversation by snipping that part of my reply. So I shitcanned the bitch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 21:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mqe8mg$n8o$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #1958216 |
In article <mqe714$lre$1@dont-email.me>, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> said: [ re "the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois" ] > Interestingly, what she cut was my observation that the idea of > talking about the analogy of non-stamp-collecting was devised as a > conversation starter, not a conversation stopper. So she stopped > the conversation by snipping that part of my reply. > > So I shitcanned the bitch. What makes you think it's a she? Not that trolling assholes like this one are _never_ female, but I think that statistically they're a lot more likely to turn out to me males. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 14:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lkkksa5ne35chtq7l1ogjd8d7jme0sdr63@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1957817 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:43:09 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >On 8/11/2015 8:26 AM, niunian wrote: >> On 2015-08-11 11:06 PM, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: >>> On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >>>> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>>>> >>>>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >>>> >>>> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >>>> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >>>> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >>>> science. >>> >>> Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >>> atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any >>> god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >>> belief in a god.) >>> >>> Stop spewing nonsense. >> >> Atheism has been improving. In the old days, they believed there was no >> God. Nowadays, in order to avoid denying God in case there is one, they >> believe they have no belief. It's a kind of self denial logic to get out >> of an awkward position. > >Partly. As I have earlier elaborated, some atheists are "strong" >atheists, believing there is no god; others are "weak" atheists, lacking >a belief *in* any god. It's still *about* belief, generally, and at >least for the weak atheists, there's nothing pejorative about it. I am sure this strong weak crap was crafted by theists to be able to feel better about themselves > >I dislike people who try to argue this using stale slogans they wrongly >consider to be catchy and witty, and that includes militant atheists who >repeatedly toss off the three-second bit of snark about "not collecting >stamps", as well as the militant anti-atheists who brainlessly repeat >the marginally less snarky "atheism is just another faith-based >religion" bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-11 14:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pekksadprb2m3qm2ue757320g8tvumvvtb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1957798 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:06:39 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>> >>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >> >> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >> science. > >Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong >atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any I dont even think that is true, you can not in any way be an atheist and have a belief in any god. Strong or weak doest matter, if you are an atheist you have no belief in god weather strong or weak >god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a >belief in a god.) > >Stop spewing nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 12:35 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <d300okFd3vfU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #1957798 |
On 11/08/2015 11:06 pm, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois wrote: > On 8/11/2015 7:58 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:29:15 -0700, the late Marie Therese LaBourgeois >> <barack@dewey_cheatham_and_howe.com> wrote: >> >>> On 4/24/2015 10:51 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Atheism is based on beliefs, not science. >>> >>> In what way is that a criticism? Explain. >> >> Ignoring, for the moment, the inappropriate cross-posting between >> alt.atheism, rec.arts.sf.written, sci.physics and >> sci.physics.relativity - atheism is based on neither beliefs nor >> science. > > Of course it's based on beliefs, whether positive or negative. Strong > atheists believe there is no god. Weak atheists don't believe in any > god (a negative belief - they have beliefs, but absent from them is a > belief in a god.) > > Stop spewing nonsense. > What absolute rubbish. Not believing is not the same as believing in something. -- Robert Bannister Perth, Western Australia
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web