Posted by Steve on 09/19/07 14:37

> I read something very interesting in this month's Scientific American last
> night:

so you actually do that?

> 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."

and like most religious people, ludwig had no fucking clue and was a
paranoid bastard. we atheists don't hold meetings to take over the world as
you religious folk do. as a matter of fact, outside of not caring whether or
not god exists without evidence, we really don't have enough in common to
keep conversations that interesting...much less hang out on an ongoing
basis.

we have no movement outside of not allowing religion to permeate *every*
sector of public domain. that is an action and far from diatribe.

again, glad to find out you read. just wish you'd have read something that
actually applied to what we've been talking about. did you just google and
copy/paste the first thing you found that had the word "atheist" in it?

>>>> 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.

it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there is no
objective evidence that god exists! get that through your pea-sized brain!
the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.

i see your logic...majority makes right. the majority of the world consists
of underdeveloped countries still rolling the bones and believing in demonic
possession! as for those countries with educational opportunities (as we
have seen again with the evolution of man's thought sophistication), there
is more critical thinking being applied to all the religious dogma and god
is replaced with reason. good bye "god of the gaps".

now, what was your point...cuz you certainly have not made any with that
remark.


>>>> 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'm not against ANY religion. i go to church every sunday and blend in just
like you, jerry. i suspect a surprising number of your flock are just like
me, skeptical people in fancy suits just hoping no one asks, 'so, how's your
walk with our lord jesus christ'. by the way, i fit in quite well and am
close with my pastor...we golf every weekend. go figure.

> I refer you to von Mises above.

i refer you to 'get a fucking clue'.

>>
>>>>>> 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".

they may not be proof of me, but that was not the point anyway. the point
is, for the third time, that it is proof of something. whatever conclusions
you make by observing the proof is a function of scientific method.

>> 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.

no, oh noobie-to-philosophy. you should have recognized that i just
regurgitated the classical adaptation to descartes 'i think' reduction. man,
you should read more and speak less until you actually get up to speed with
theological and philisophical points of consideration and contention. did
you even go to college, or just something like ITT tech.?

>> 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.

'finally'? that was the first mention. i never countered it. it is long
considered to be the best, the *first case*, from which we understand all
things. shit, you never did go to a philosophy class did you.

jerry, stick to PHP...at least in that context, you are right more than you
are wrong...but in either case, you've done your homework.

as for you 'understanding' of other pov's. it is clear that when viewing
them, you are merely looking at them rather than actually *taking* the pov
in order to understand it...an the goggles of christianity never came off
when you were looking at it. i imagine the whole time you considered another
pov, racing through your mind was, 'how could anyone believe this bullshit?'

>>>>>> '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.

no, check your budget. how much of your funding specifically ends up in your
community. the bulk, your accountant will tell you (outside of operating
expenses, that i already said we not consider, you moron), goes to your
denominations' headquarters with other large chuncks of change going to your
denominations support of their missions - which are not local by any
means...all the while, fulfilling the great commission i might add.
surprisingly little actually goes back to the community that you were meant
to serve.

>> 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".

lol. is that like your economics blunder of not knowing the two sides of the
economic equation - aside from the fact you didn't even know there WERE two
sides? roflmfao

[Back to original message]