NO EVIDENCE OF GODS

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:03:43 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<46012efb$0$16272$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:08vqv2pcs0gpcoqd6ercnmndo9oa2jdkie@4ax.com...
>> On 18 Mar 2007 08:56:07 -0700, in alt.atheism
>> "rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in
>> <1174233367.533631.313160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>>On Mar 18, 8:29?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
>>>> Pastor Frank <P...@christfirst.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> > >> We have nothing to talk about. use words with their actual
>>>> > >> meanings, not with meanings given to them by atheists.
>>>>
>>>> > > The word "fetus" is a precise, specific term--unlike the many
>>>> > > nonsense
>>>> > > religious terms created solely to inflame emotions over the abortion
>>>> > > issue.
>>>>
>>>> > >> The fact that atheists can say that unborn children are not human
>>>> > >> beings
>>>> > >> means nothing to me.
>>>>
>>>> > > Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of those
>>>> > > nonsense terms) are not human beings.
>>>>
>>>> > "not human beings" like Jews were in Germany perhaps, or Negros were
>>>> > in
>>>> > the USA?
>>>>
>>>> No, "not human beings" like not having a birth date...- Hide quoted
>>>> text -
>>>>
>>>The term "human being" has nothing to do with time. All it means is
>>>that the individual is human and exists. With regard to the term
>>>child, I use it the same way it was used in the Bible. Luke 2:5 To
>>>be taxed with Mary his espoused wife being great with child.
>>>As you can see from this verse of the Bible, Jesus Christ was a child
>>>while he was still in his mother's womb.
>>
>> The law has never treated fetuses as if they were children. Get over it.
>>
> Now that's a lie!!! Until abortion was declared legal, ALL humans were
>protected by law, and a human "foetus" is undeniably human. You are just
>conveniently discriminating against the most vulnerable of our society.

Show me a law that treated a foetus as a child.
 
"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:qloqv2pt3140flgriksofk45h87tj1jsge@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:44:29 +0800, in alt.atheism
> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
> <45fcb9bf$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1hv3ycb.lnc03k1xa85e6N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>
>>> Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of those
>>> nonsense terms) are not human beings.
>>>
>> "not human beings" like Jews were in Germany perhaps, or Negros were
>> in
>>the USA?
>
> Not really.
> By the way, I have no use for abortion, but the folks who call
> themselves 'pro-life' have proven themselves to be some of the most
> vile, corrupt people in American politics today. They are offensive
> beyond words.
>
Any evidence for your vilifications and accusations? Oh, I forgot,
....proof and evidence is only required from Christians, all others can just
voice their personal and private opinions as if they were facts, and expect
to be taken seriously. But then, that is atheists dogma, isn't it?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:39:00 +0800, in alt.atheism
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
<4601dc99$0$16296$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>news:qloqv2pt3140flgriksofk45h87tj1jsge@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:44:29 +0800, in alt.atheism
>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>> <45fcb9bf$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1hv3ycb.lnc03k1xa85e6N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>>
>>>> Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of those
>>>> nonsense terms) are not human beings.
>>>>
>>> "not human beings" like Jews were in Germany perhaps, or Negros were
>>> in
>>>the USA?
>>
>> Not really.
>> By the way, I have no use for abortion, but the folks who call
>> themselves 'pro-life' have proven themselves to be some of the most
>> vile, corrupt people in American politics today. They are offensive
>> beyond words.
>>
> Any evidence for your vilifications and accusations? Oh, I forgot,
>...proof and evidence is only required from Christians, all others can just
>voice their personal and private opinions as if they were facts, and expect
>to be taken seriously. But then, that is atheists dogma, isn't it?

Since you have your mind made up, I won't bother to direct you to the
evidence. You have made it quite clear that I would be offering pearls
before swine.
 
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 02:33:12 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
- Refer: <0mq303havj87mrsfcgkd3065m2li1oneb4@4ax.com>
>On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:39:00 +0800, in alt.atheism
>"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
><4601dc99$0$16296$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>>news:qloqv2pt3140flgriksofk45h87tj1jsge@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:44:29 +0800, in alt.atheism
>>> "Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.edu> wrote in
>>> <45fcb9bf$0$16292$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:
>>>>"Scott Richter" <scottrichter422@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1hv3ycb.lnc03k1xa85e6N%scottrichter422@yahoo.com...
>>>
>>>>> Actually, the law says that "unborn children" (there's one of those
>>>>> nonsense terms) are not human beings.
>>>>>
>>>> "not human beings" like Jews were in Germany perhaps, or Negros were
>>>> in
>>>>the USA?
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>> By the way, I have no use for abortion, but the folks who call
>>> themselves 'pro-life' have proven themselves to be some of the most
>>> vile, corrupt people in American politics today. They are offensive
>>> beyond words.
>>>
>> Any evidence for your vilifications and accusations? Oh, I forgot,
>>...proof and evidence is only required from Christians, all others can just
>>voice their personal and private opinions as if they were facts, and expect
>>to be taken seriously. But then, that is atheists dogma, isn't it?
>
>Since you have your mind made up, I won't bother to direct you to the
>evidence. You have made it quite clear that I would be offering pearls
>before swine.

What is your evidence that Pastit Wank has such a thing as a "mind" to
"make up"?
I have seen not a skerrick of any such thing in the last decade or so.

Perhaps you could point me to it, say: the header of the single post
in which he may have displayed some rudimentary intelligence?

I'm thinking that you will be incapable of doing so.
You atheists are as bad as the theists in your wild implicated
assertions!!















;)

--
 
On Mar 21, 8:32?am, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
>
> "You people"?
>
> We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be tellin'
> us that we don't know which way is straight, so that must be da truth!
> Without your helps, I don't know what we all would do! We be mighty
> thankful for that, sah!

You seem to like making fun of minorities.
Robert B. Winn
 
<andi1235@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174332707.125185.93970@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 13, 12:13 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>> Because we aren't smug gits like you. We haven't already judged
>> ourselves and decided that we passed and that everyone who disagrees
>> with us will go to hell. Of course, I think you made it all up with your
>> personal interpretation of the Bible, so I don't really care what you
>> do. However much I might be satisfied with the result, I know that no
>> one is going to send you to hell for being self-righteous.
>
> No one will go to Hell for being self-righteous, but atheists who are
> completely certain in their BELIEF of the lack of any Gods are just as
> self-righteous and smug as any Fundamentalist Christian out there --
> and for the record, I don't think either side is right. I am
> absolutely opposed to the Fundamentalist view of Heaven and Hell and
> religion in general, but I am equally opposed to Atheists who are so
> certain in THEIR beliefs that they can't stand the thought that there
> might be something out there more impressive then humans. Granted,
> the Atheist isn't going to try and condemn me to eternal suffering
> because I disagree with them, but some of them still tend to be self-
> righteous jerks, or "smug gits," if you prefer.
> Sorry for the harsh tone, but come on, someone else's belief in Hell
> isn't hurting you, so take the high ground and be polite about
> things. You can't possibly know the One Certain Truth any more then
> your average Christian does, and except for a small minority of evil,
> angry religious people who try to justify their evil actions by
> twisting religion to their purposes, the vast majority of people who
> hold some sort of religious belief are not hurting ANYONE. No matter
> how much they believe in Hell, they aren't going to make it true.
> FYI, I like to believe that there is some sort of God or group of Gods
> out there, but I don't for a moment pretend to know for sure, and
> since no one could possibly know the Truth for sure, I'm willing to
> live and let live, unless someone is acting like an ass because of
> their belief or lack thereof, at which point I'll....um....give them a
> (hopefully!) polite lecture, apparently ;).
> -Andi :)
>
The hell, as well as God and His heaven etc. of your definition are sure
NOT to exist. The challenge for you as well as for atheists is to find that
one definition of those words which make sense.
An atheist is one who gave up thinking about meanings and testing them,
in favour of chanting mantras which require no evidence, nor logic, thought
and reason.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
> >
> > "You people"?
> >
> > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be tellin'
> > us that we don't know which way is straight, so that must be da truth!
> > Without your helps, I don't know what we all would do! We be mighty
> > thankful for that, sah!
>
> You seem to like making fun of minorities.

As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people")
I AM a minority...
 
On Mar 22, 7:22?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
>
> > > "You people"?
>
> > > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be tellin'
> > > us that we don't know which way is straight, so that must be da truth!
> > > Without your helps, I don't know what we all would do! We be mighty
> > > thankful for that, sah!
>
> > You seem to like making fun of minorities.
>
> As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people")
> I AM a minority...

Well, I don't really think so.
Robert B. Winn
 
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1174358012.056109.225490@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 6:31 am, andi1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I am
>> absolutely opposed to the Fundamentalist view of Heaven and Hell
>
There is no "fundamentalist view of heaven and hell". There is a
literalist view however, and I guess you are objecting to that one, without
bothering to explain which view you find acceptable. But then atheism is
only about what one rejects, disbeliefs and opposes etc. and not ever about
anyone or anything one supports, advocates and promotes.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1174358012.056109.225490@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 20, 6:31 am, andi1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I am
> >> absolutely opposed to the Fundamentalist view of Heaven and Hell
> >
> There is no "fundamentalist view of heaven and hell". There is a
> literalist view however, and I guess you are objecting to that one, without
> bothering to explain which view you find acceptable. But then atheism is
> only about what one rejects, disbeliefs and opposes etc. and not ever about
> anyone or anything one supports, advocates and promotes.

Atheism is about lack of theism, Frank; you KNOW that. Why are you
lying?
 
Pastor Frank wrote:
> <andi1235@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174332707.125185.93970@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 13, 12:13 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> Because we aren't smug gits like you. We haven't already judged
> >> ourselves and decided that we passed and that everyone who disagrees
> >> with us will go to hell. Of course, I think you made it all up with your
> >> personal interpretation of the Bible, so I don't really care what you
> >> do. However much I might be satisfied with the result, I know that no
> >> one is going to send you to hell for being self-righteous.
> >
> > No one will go to Hell for being self-righteous, but atheists who are
> > completely certain in their BELIEF of the lack of any Gods are just as
> > self-righteous and smug as any Fundamentalist Christian out there --
> > and for the record, I don't think either side is right. I am
> > absolutely opposed to the Fundamentalist view of Heaven and Hell and
> > religion in general, but I am equally opposed to Atheists who are so
> > certain in THEIR beliefs that they can't stand the thought that there
> > might be something out there more impressive then humans. Granted,
> > the Atheist isn't going to try and condemn me to eternal suffering
> > because I disagree with them, but some of them still tend to be self-
> > righteous jerks, or "smug gits," if you prefer.
> > Sorry for the harsh tone, but come on, someone else's belief in Hell
> > isn't hurting you, so take the high ground and be polite about
> > things. You can't possibly know the One Certain Truth any more then
> > your average Christian does, and except for a small minority of evil,
> > angry religious people who try to justify their evil actions by
> > twisting religion to their purposes, the vast majority of people who
> > hold some sort of religious belief are not hurting ANYONE. No matter
> > how much they believe in Hell, they aren't going to make it true.
> > FYI, I like to believe that there is some sort of God or group of Gods
> > out there, but I don't for a moment pretend to know for sure, and
> > since no one could possibly know the Truth for sure, I'm willing to
> > live and let live, unless someone is acting like an ass because of
> > their belief or lack thereof, at which point I'll....um....give them a
> > (hopefully!) polite lecture, apparently ;).
> > -Andi :)
> >
> The hell, as well as God and His heaven etc. of your definition are sure
> NOT to exist. The challenge for you as well as for atheists is to find that
> one definition of those words which make sense.

Uh, no, Frank. The "challenge" is to get theists to agree on one
definition. It isn't the job of atheists to define the beliefs of
theists. Why would it be?

> An atheist is one who gave up thinking about meanings and testing them,
> in favour of chanting mantras which require no evidence, nor logic, thought
> and reason.

Really. Your proposed logical, evidentiary test for deities is what?
 
rbwinn wrote:
> On Mar 22, 7:22?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
> >
> > > > "You people"?
> >
> > > > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be tellin'
> > > > us that we don't know which way is straight, so that must be da truth!
> > > > Without your helps, I don't know what we all would do! We be mighty
> > > > thankful for that, sah!
> >
> > > You seem to like making fun of minorities.
> >
> > As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people")
> > I AM a minority...
>
> Well, I don't really think so.

You don't think atheists are a minority? What do you think the
percentage of atheists is in the population?
 
On Mar 23, 7:35�am, "JessHC" <jes...@phantomemail.com> wrote:
> rbwinn wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 7:22?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> > > rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
>
> > > > > "You people"?
>
> > > > > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be tellin'
> > > > > us that we don't know which way is straight, so that must be da truth!
> > > > > Without your helps, I don't know what we all would do! We be mighty
> > > > > thankful for that, sah!
>
> > > > You seem to like making fun of minorities.
>
> > > As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people")
> > > I AM a minority...
>
> > Well, I don't really think so.
>
> You don't think atheists are a minority?
 
rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
> >
> > > > > > "You people"?
> >
> > > > > > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be
> > > > > > tellin' us that we don't know which way is straight, so that
> > > > > > must be da truth! Without your helps, I don't know what we all
> > > > > > would do! We be mighty thankful for that, sah!
> >
> > > > > You seem to like making fun of minorities.
> >
> > > > As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people")
> > > > I AM a minority...
> >
> > > Well, I don't really think so.
> >
> > You don't think atheists are a minority? ?What do you think the
> > percentage of atheists is in the population?- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
> Well, what would it matter since atheists control the judicial system
> of the United States, which they have made the strongest branch of
> government?

I'm guessing you're a Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter kind of
guy... Am I right?



> They are a minority the same way slave owners were a minority in the
> South prior to the Civil War.

Ah, so YOU'RE the one who should be calling ME "massah"?

Thanks for clearing that up, Sambo!
 
On Mar 23, 1:09?pm, scottrichter...@yahoo.com (Scott Richter) wrote:
> rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
>
> > > > > > > "You people"?
>
> > > > > > > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be
> > > > > > > tellin' us that we don't know which way is straight, so that
> > > > > > > must be da truth! Without your helps, I don't know what we all
> > > > > > > would do! We be mighty thankful for that, sah!
>
> > > > > > You seem to like making fun of minorities.
>
> > > > > As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people")
> > > > > I AM a minority...
>
> > > > Well, I don't really think so.
>
> > > You don't think atheists are a minority? ?What do you think the
> > > percentage of atheists is in the population?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well, what would it matter since atheists control the judicial system
> > of the United States, which they have made the strongest branch of
> > government?
>
> I'm guessing you're a Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter kind of
> guy... Am I right?
>
> > They are a minority the same way slave owners were a minority in the
> > South prior to the Civil War.
>
> Ah, so YOU'RE the one who should be calling ME "massah"?
>
> Thanks for clearing that up, Sambo!- Hide quoted text -
>
I don't call you anything. The people you compare me to are all Party
members. I have never been anything except an independent voter.
Robert B. Winn
 
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:09:48 -0700, scottrichter422@yahoo.com (Scott
Richter) wrote:
- Refer: <1hvfj05.bxcxsmlhkfbN%scottrichter422@yahoo.com>
>rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > > > > Good thing there is a God to set you people straight then.
>> >
>> > > > > > "You people"?
>> >
>> > > > > > We po' atheists surely do appreciate your wisdom, massah! You be
>> > > > > > tellin' us that we don't know which way is straight, so that
>> > > > > > must be da truth! Without your helps, I don't know what we all
>> > > > > > would do! We be mighty thankful for that, sah!
>> >
>> > > > > You seem to like making fun of minorities.
>> >
>> > > > As an atheist in America (or as you so eloquently put it, "you people")
>> > > > I AM a minority...
>> >
>> > > Well, I don't really think so.
>> >
>> > You don't think atheists are a minority? ?What do you think the
>> > percentage of atheists is in the population?- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>>
>> Well, what would it matter since atheists control the judicial system
>> of the United States, which they have made the strongest branch of
>> government?
>
>I'm guessing you're a Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter kind of
>guy... Am I right?

No.
They once had brains.

--
 
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
wrote:

>Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote:
>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist.
>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that
>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it.
>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me.
>>>>
>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of
>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory.
>>>>
>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish
>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wonderful.
>>>
>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions?
>>
>> Ok, and do the same for me.
>>
>> Here is one that I think I see:
>>
>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all
>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other
>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in
>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a
>> belief in what are called gods".
>>
>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But
>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on
>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove
>> that it does not exist.
>>
>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but
>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does
>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg,
>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc.
>>
>
>I don't think some so-called atheists here
>even know what they are doing.
>They are just hate-filled morons.

Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that
would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled
morons in that group.

>I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith"
>than identifying yourself with reference to theism.

I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this
newsgroup (alt.atheism).

Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not
believe in gods?

Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I
"identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians
believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god
is often expected to be an underlying assumption.

>It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American."
>Almost a fighting word.

Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who
feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like
fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"...

I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to
look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory.

If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that
they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that
is too much to ask, this being usenet.

>Most people here have some interest in faith.
>If you cannot talk about faith
>without resorting to abusive language,
>you probably don't belong to this forum.

I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from?

>Do you have faith in reason?

Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith?
 
Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist.
>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that
>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it.
>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of
>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish
>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Wonderful.
>>>>
>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions?
>>> Ok, and do the same for me.
>>>
>>> Here is one that I think I see:
>>>
>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all
>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other
>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in
>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a
>>> belief in what are called gods".
>>>
>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But
>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on
>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove
>>> that it does not exist.
>>>
>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but
>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does
>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg,
>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc.
>>>
>> I don't think some so-called atheists here
>> even know what they are doing.
>> They are just hate-filled morons.
>
> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that
> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled
> morons in that group.
>
>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith"
>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism.
>
> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this
> newsgroup (alt.atheism).
>
> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not
> believe in gods?
>
> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I
> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians
> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god
> is often expected to be an underlying assumption.
>
>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American."
>> Almost a fighting word.
>
> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who
> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like
> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"...
>
> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to
> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory.
>
> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that
> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that
> is too much to ask, this being usenet.
>
>> Most people here have some interest in faith.
>> If you cannot talk about faith
>> without resorting to abusive language,
>> you probably don't belong to this forum.
>
> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from?
>
>> Do you have faith in reason?
>
> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith?
>

Good for you.
Such attitude is all I'm asking for
here at alt.atheism.

I'm not interested in controlling
what people think or how they think,
but just how they behave here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
Are you a physicalist?

--
~Stumper
 
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:49:18 -0400, stumper wrote:

> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:21:41 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:26:05 -0400, stumper <stumper@newvessel.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul Ransom Erickson wrote:
>>>>>> stumper <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It's not easy to prove that something does not exist.
>>>>>>> It would be a lot easier to show that
>>>>>>> you can be kinder and gentler without relying on it.
>>>>>> Who is trying to prove that something doesn't exist? Not me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't even think it can be done for "god", unless the definition of
>>>>>> some partucular god is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that you have a lot of assumptions hidden behind your zennish
>>>>>> prose. Go honk at yourself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wonderful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Care to help me pin down those assumptions?
>>>> Ok, and do the same for me.
>>>>
>>>> Here is one that I think I see:
>>>>
>>>> It looks like you think the atheists you are talking to are all
>>>> interested in disproving the existence of a character that other
>>>> people believe in. You might not have picked up on it yet, but in
>>>> alt.atheism "atheism" usually means "someone who does not have a
>>>> belief in what are called gods".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is a vexed description because the word "god" is vexed. But
>>>> at least it does not mean that to be an atheist is to be focused on
>>>> the nonexistence of some such entity -- or on the attempt to prove
>>>> that it does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that there are some here who do focus on just that, but
>>>> that depends on the individual. The self-appelation "atheist" does
>>>> not tell you enough about a person to lecture them about, eg,
>>>> "atheism" being a Christian theology, etc.
>>>>
>>> I don't think some so-called atheists here
>>> even know what they are doing.
>>> They are just hate-filled morons.
>>
>> Yes, there are many hate filled morons. Pick any description that
>> would like to use to define a group, and you will find hate-filled
>> morons in that group.
>>
>>> I think it would be better to be "anti blind faith"
>>> than identifying yourself with reference to theism.
>>
>> I rarely think of myself as an atheist unless I am reading this
>> newsgroup (alt.atheism).
>>
>> Don't you think it is useful to have a word for people who do not
>> believe in gods?
>>
>> Just because I use the word "atheist" of myself does not mean that I
>> "identify" as one who does not believe in the god that Christians
>> believe in. The word is useful, though, in a culture where that god
>> is often expected to be an underlying assumption.
>>
>>> It's like telling Americans that you are "un-American."
>>> Almost a fighting word.
>>
>> Like "un-American", "atheist" is only a fighting word to people who
>> feel like fighting about it. Even "anti blind faith" might sound like
>> fighting words to some people... Likewise "agnostic"...
>>
>> I don't know who initiates crosspostings because I can't be asked to
>> look. But among atheists the word "atheist" is not inflammatory.
>>
>> If people come here and get offended at the word, I would hope that
>> they could have a bit of perspective about it. But I know that that
>> is too much to ask, this being usenet.
>>
>>> Most people here have some interest in faith.
>>> If you cannot talk about faith
>>> without resorting to abusive language,
>>> you probably don't belong to this forum.
>>
>> I'm not usually abusive. What group are you posting from?
>>
>>> Do you have faith in reason?
>>
>> Maybe. What do you mean by reason, and what do you mean by faith?
>>
>
> Good for you.
> Such attitude is all I'm asking for
> here at alt.atheism.
>
> I'm not interested in controlling
> what people think or how they think,
> but just how they behave here.

Who died and left you moderator?

--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
 
"stumper" <stumper@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:pPydnZvgloRnZmLYnZ2dnUVZ_riknZ2d@ptd.net...
>
> Do you have faith in reason?
>
Only to the extent that love is subject to reason, for our Christian
"God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ
propitiating our sins, not His, on the cross of Calvary.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 

Similar threads

R
NO EVIDENCE OF ANY GODS
Replies
5
Views
18
Richo
R
B
A CHALLENGE FOR RELIGIONISTS
Replies
6
Views
18
Steve Hayes
S
B
FALSE GODS
2 3
Replies
55
Views
56
bob young
B
B
EVIDENCE OF NO REAL GOD
Replies
4
Views
21
Christopher A.Lee
C
B
GOD MYTHS AND FABLES
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
71
bob young
B
Back
Top