|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/19/07 11:08
Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:y8WdnX190JAOrG3bnZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is not
>>>>>> a "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no god.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>>>>> negative, ghost rider.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'a' latin: without
>>>>> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>>>>>
>>>>> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>>>>>
>>>> Which does not mean it is not a religion.
>>>>
>>>>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>>>>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>>>>> resembles anything religious?
>>>>>
>>>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>>>> belief.
>>>>
>>> No. I profess no belief in god.
>>> That is not a belief.
>>>
>>> It is the absence of one.
>>>
>> So you profess a belief in no god. A disbelief is also a belief.
>
> well, no, it's not. belief is objective. disbelief would be the rejection of
> the object of belief. as in, you say there is a god. i say, without
> evidence, there is no reason to think you are correct.
>
I read something very interesting in this month's Scientific American
last night:
Athiests cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe.
As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist
colleagues in the 1950's: "An anti-something movement displays a purely
negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its
passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack.
People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply
reject an evil, no matter how bad it may be."
>>> I also profess no belief in leprechauns. Does that make me some kind of
>>> religious person?
>>>
>> Leprechauns are not gods.
>
> neither is your god. until you can PROVE otherwise, then both leprechauns
> and god are equally almighty.
>
How can He be, when according to you there are not gods? Unfortunately
for you, the majority of the world disagrees with you. And when it
comes to the meanings of words, majority rules.
>>> In fact there are thousands of things I do not believe, up to and
>>> including that GW Bush is the reincarnation of Immelda Markos.
>>>
>>> Like my non belief in god, the are simply not worth mentioning.
>>>
>>> What religious people do not like at all, is that to an atheist, the
>>> issue of whether god exists or not is simply irrelevant. Uninteresting in
>>> the highest degree. Its useless to believe or disbelieve. It has little
>>> objective effect either way.
>>>
>>>
>> I really don't care one way or the other what you think. Your religious
>> views are your own. Just don't infringe on my right to believe as I
>> choose.
>
> it is obvious to all that you don't care for anyone else's viewpoint. you
> don't even understand atheism enough to know what it is and is not (i.e. is
> not a religion). and, we could give two flying fucks what you believe.
> however, we at least have had an open mind enough to find out about not only
> your religion, but many others. you seem to feel comfortable using your
> asshole as blinders on the subject of religion. no wonder your opinion is so
> tunnel-visioned.
>
Yes, I do understand it. And I also understand that you hate it being
called a religion - because you are against all religions.
I refer you to von Mises above.
>
>>>>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to believe
>>>>> that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than for santa
>>>>> clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying that this
>>>>> critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or a
>>>>> asanta-clausian?
>>>>>
>>>> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't try
>>>> to convince me my opinion is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on my
>>>> screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
>>>> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that you
>>>> do.
>>>>
>>> Thats your problem, not mine.
>>>
>> Not a problem at all.
>
> if you can't infer the inputs given to your senses, then you do have a
> problem. the hallmark trait of humanity is the ability to infer meaning and
> purpose. if you need god for that, fine. if you can't figure out the source
> of the letters you're reading, god ain't going to help you with that. as for
> what is 'real' and what is not, i fear - given your lack of study on the
> rest of theology and philosophy - you are ill-equipped to have a meaningful
> discussion. which begs the question, why did you try and vent the
> conversation in that direction?
>
Not at all. I can infer meaning and purpose just fine. But I can't see
you, I can't touch you - IOW, I have no proof you exist. Characters on
a screen are not "proof".
> as for what is 'real', even descartes was wrong. thinking is an activity
> that must be observed and confirmed. since all inputs could be deceptions of
> our senses, we can only say that 'i am'...else we wouldn't care to ponder
> the question in the first place. it is not 'i think, therefore i am'. his
> logic was good, just not taken far enough.
>
Oh, so now you great philosopher, also? ROFLMAO.
> if that's where you wanted the conversation to go, sorry, you win. all may
> very well be an illusion. now, where does that get us? epistimology doesn't
> get us very far down the road.
>
Glad you finally admit it.
>>>>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a
>>>>> religion make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that would
>>>>> be the start of religion.
>>>>>
>>>> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
>>>>
>>> No, simply no belief in its existence. And no need to have or not have
>>> the belief.
>> Same idea, different words.
>
> no, it's not just symantics. the fact that you don't get it, just means you
> don't get it. you can't "i'm right no matter what you say" your way out of
> this one, jerry.
>
Oh, I get it, alright.
> if that's the way you chose to play it, then i'll just say my admitted
> generalization about church being a *business* is not a generalization at
> all. in fact, it is true. and, i'll use your words: "Try to deny it all you
> want. It won't work."
>
How little you know.
Of course churches need to make money - they have bills to pay, also.
And as a whole, they contribute more back to the community than all Red
Crosses, Salvation Armies and the like do together. But churches are
not businesses - even the Federal government agrees with that.
> see how stupid that makes me sound? that's rhetorical and supposed to get
> you to substitue the word "me" with "you"...since you're having problems in
> this thread thinking logically.
>
>
Yep, it shows just how little you understand even the definition of a
"business".
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|