Posted by Steve on 09/18/07 21:06

"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 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.

>> 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.


>>>> 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?

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.

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.

>>>> '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.

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."

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.

[Back to original message]