Say Anything Blog

10.  Get the Conservative New Media to do in depth investigations uncovering whats really going on.

11.  Get the blogger community up in arms.

12.  Start a philosophical civil war.

More to be added. 

You know all political parties spin doctor to believe anything else is just dumb.

#9 is effective because many people do not remember important events very long.  #12 has been ongoing since one individual with the help of some Supreme Court Justices took God out of our schools and the public square.

Chief some would say the constitution did that.

Some wouldn’t.  Can you present the part of the Constitution that says "no religion will betolerated, whatsoever"?

(If you were being sarcastic, apologies, I can’t recall your perspective...) 

Just making a counter point

#9 is effective because many people do not remember important events very long.

Which is exactly why I called the population fickle... 

Richard, Atheism is a religion too.  There are extremists in that court as well.  Would you bow to the extremists of the religion of Atheism by banning everyone else’s expression of their religion?  So it seems... 

Wow I was just throwing out that SOME PEOPLE would say the constitution did it not the judges and now I get all of this. I do not want to speak for Chief but I am fairly confident that he took it in the air it was intended.

As far as the other crap goes religion will never ever be seperated from education as long as there are christian educators the fact that they choose an arena that is supposed to be for education to get only their message out is whole horse of a different color.

As far as Islam teaching goes I am still laughing about that. 

Seth I am aware that any belief can be considered a religion however I never said shit about any religion either for or against but I am going to now.

That is the problem with chriatianity the devisiveness of you are either one of us or you are wrong. My response to that is blow me you closed minded fuck.

Seth I am aware that any belief can be considered a religion however I never said shit about any religion either for or against but I am going to now.

That is the problem with chriatianity the devisiveness of you are either one of us or you are wrong. My response to that is blow me you closed minded fuck.

Richard, your anger betrays you....

And the Christian teachers might espouse their views in class, sure.  It’s human nature.  But the anti-Christian teachers (aka, the NOW, the NEA, the liberal teachers) preach their cause much more vehemently, and unfortunately for us Christains, much more successfully thanks to the Education system’s slant to the left…

I found this comment interesting -

“Atheism is a religion too.”

I looked up religion in the Oxford English Dictionary, and found -

1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power
2) A pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Atheism is certainly not 1), the conventional definition of religion. Which leaves us with 2).

Now, while some atheists might pursue their interest in atheism with ‘devotion’, not all do. I certainly don’t, and I don’t think Rob does either. I find it hard to see how atheism is a religion without asserting that all, or at best the great majority of, atheists are devoted to their atheism - in my experience most simply refuse to subscribe to a belief in sky gods, and do so without any great fuss, or strenuous efforts to convert others, et cetera.

So I think your claim should at least be qualified, Seth.

I agree with Mark, though I’d add that the "devoted" atheists tend to be the most vocal atheists, thus the sort most people hear from and see.  Its easy to get a false impression of atheists as a whole from that minority.

I doubt most would even know that I am an atheist unless I told them, though I guess I do consider myself "devoted" to my belief, or lack thereof. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

‘“devoted" atheists tend to be the most vocal atheists, thus the sort most people hear from and see.’

Precisely. Perhaps a qualification of Seth’s comment would run -

‘Some (a small minority of?) atheists can be religiously devoted to their opinions’.

‘I guess I do consider myself “devoted” to my belief, or lack thereof.’

I think everyone is devoted to their lack of belief in Zeus and Poseidon…

Richard, Atheism is a religion too.

Yes. It’s a religion devoted to the worship of Athe.

Mark: By definition number 2, conservative politics, Stephen King novels and fly-fishing would qualify as "religions."

So I think your claim should at least be qualified, Seth.

 Okay...  Atheism is a belief, yes?  It can not be proven any more than any other religion, yes?  Of course there are devout Atheists and atheists, just as there are devout Christians and Christians...  The vast majority of people are happy to let everyone else have their view of religion.  Most Atheists can handle sitting through a Christian sermon, right?  Some can’t.  It’s those that can’t that tend to feel the need to remove "God" from money, schools, etc...  Those that feel the need to remove “God” from everything are the Religious Extremist Atheists.  They have the same “Closed-Mind” syndrome that is attributed so frequently to the fanatical Christians, Islamics, etc…

Need more qualification?

Richard, I am assuming that you missed your lithium treatment today.  Good luck with that!     You do know that the Constitution doesn’t have a separation of Church and State, right?  You’ve been here long enough to know that by now and if you don’t then perhaps you are the one with the closed mind. 

And, by the way.  I consider myself an Atheist too…

but, since there is no term for the Extermist Atheist, I perfer to consider myself "undecided."

Dave -
Granted - I was being generous…

On the subject of more zealous atheists, I found this -

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393035158/sr=8-2/qid=1141145331/ref=sr_1_2/103-6876835-9964608?%5Fencoding=UTF8

a good read. I think nearly everyone will find something in there to profoundly agree and profoundly disagree with…

"Atheism is a belief, yes?”

No. It’s a lack of belief.

“It can not be proven any more than any other religion, yes?”

Generally one does not need to prove a negative. I do not need to prove the absence of Zeus or Poseidon to justify my lack of belief in them.

Deary me… I’m showing signs of devotion to atheism here…

Back from a lengthly meeting trying to straighten another anti-war person out.  I think I got through to him and at least he is now thinking instead of just parroting.  To religion:  richard, looks like I opened up a large can.  docdave, that quote from the constitution is correct.  In my vast observations and direct contact with students and parents over 29 years, the lack of guidance from God, or other beings makes those on earth the final decision maker.  That leads to crimes and corrupts our children:  http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/2006/02/children-do-not-lie.html   someone has republished this (with credit) already.  Take a look and see why we are in such a quandry now with our public education system.  The liberals are corrupting our children.  Look at the faces in the picture.  All children start out basically like these Iraqi children.

Atheism is a belief, yes?

No, atheism is a lack of a belief. A lack of a belief in theism, to be exact.

Most Atheists can handle sitting through a Christian sermon, right?  Some can’t.  It’s those that can’t that tend to feel the need to remove "God" from money, schools, etc...  Those that feel the need to remove “God” from everything are the Religious Extremist Atheists. 

So, atheism becomes religion only for those who have a liberal interpretation of the first amendment of the US Constituion, eh? That seems to be a very America-centric definition. As well as a lousy one.

Out of curiosity though: Are the Christians who support a separation of Church and State "Religious Extremist Atheists" as well? I bet that would really surprise them, to learn that one’s liberal views on the Constitution constituted a religion! What’s the name of the religion for those who interpret the first amendment conservatively--those who oppose a separation of church and state? Zoroastrianism? Scaliaism?

On the subject of more zealous atheists, I found this -

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393035158/sr=8-2/qid=1141145331/ref=sr_1_2/103-6876835-9964608?%5Fencoding=UTF8

a good read. I think nearly everyone will find something in there to profoundly agree and profoundly disagree with…

Like the fact that Harris is a joke, whose "Reason" is essentially "Buddhism for Dummies"? He criticizes Christianity in one breath and praises the magical powers of meditation in the other.

Like I said, “I think nearly everyone will find something in there to profoundly agree and profoundly disagree with...”

I agree, the whole Buddhism thing at the end was something of a needless diversion and left me scratching my head a little, in the light of what had gone before - it seemed an overlong and unnecessary attempt to show how some forms of religious belief (principally meditation) have some limited merit in breaking down the divisions between people.

But ‘Buddhism for Dummies’? Come on, that’s a little harsh…

Out of curiosity though: Are the Christians who support a separation of Church and State "Religious Extremist Atheists" as well? I bet that would really surprise them, to learn that one’s liberal views on the Constitution constituted a religion! What’s the name of the religion for those who interpret the first amendment conservatively--those who oppose a separation of church and state? Zoroastrianism? Scaliaism?

Are there (self-proclaimed) Christians who support blowing up abortion clinics and killing the doctors?  Yes, but so what.  Even if I told my friends to call me Sue and let me use the Ladies Room, I would not actually be a woman.

And there are no, that’s wrong, there are few conservaitves who "interpret the First Amendment conservatively—those who oppose a separation of church and state" because there is no such "separation" contained in said Amendment. 

And, lastly, I agree that there are devout Atheists but (my opinion here) there are no non-devout Atheists.  I believe you call those take-life-how-it-comes-and-leave-everyone-alone-about all-their-beliefs people Agnostics. 
Atheists believe that there is no God, Agnostics haven’t given the notion of a God any thought.  They don’t care…

Atheists believe that there is no God

No, atheists lack belief in God. Why does it seem like we’ve done this before...?

Wrong.  Princeton (Liberal hallmark of the beloved Paul Krugman) says so.

someone who denies the existence of god

"And, lastly, I agree that there are devout Atheists but (my opinion here) there are no non-devout Atheists.”

Tom - do you believe in all gods, or just one?

I think it’s safe to assume you exhibit ‘devout atheism’ towards Poseidon.

Why should the criteria for those who lack belief in the Jewish/Christian/Islamic God be any different?

Agnostic, same source…

a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

Mark,

Assuming Posiden is the King Neptune guy from my childhood, I would say I am agnostic about him, not atheist.

And for the record, I could care less if someone were a "non-devout  Atheist" (what I maintain to be an agnostic), and I married one, but I have a problem when the militant atheists run around tearing my country apart.  If they don’t like it, they can feel free to move!  I hear Spain is hiring....

Oh Tom. You’re so adorable. I’ll give you five gold stars! No.... TEN GOLD STARS!!!

(You really need to encourage people like Tom. He’s trying so hard, I just don’t have the heart to tell him how completely clueless he is.)

Isn’t it an atheist that is trying to get all mention of God and/or Jesus Christ out of the public sector? 

Isn’t it a Christian who beat his wife that one time?

Isn’t it a Christian who beat his wife that one time?

Immaterial. The atheist trying to get religion out of the public square is using his atheism as a defense. The Christian who "beat his wife that one time" isn’t using his religion as a reason nor excuse.

In other words: your analogy fails.

The atheist trying to get religion out of the public square is using his atheism as a defense.

No, he’s using the First Amendment as a defense. Wrongly, in my opinion.

And why you can’t concede to my (linked, you’re welcome) definitions.  I’ll take the gold stars, thanks, but you can keep the whine. 

You follow the rules well, though.  If proven wrong, simply change tack and go off in another direction... 

And no, Michael Newdow did not (to my knowledge) beat his wife.   He is instead the guy who lost custody of his child and continues to tie up the court system, up to and including the Supreme Court, with his ferverent "religion" of atheism.

Dave said No, atheism is a lack of a belief. A lack of a belief in theism, to be exact.

You can not have a "lack of a belief" Dave.  You have to qualify what you don’t believe.  When you qualify what you don’t believe then you have stated a belief.  If you are a "dis-believer of the existence of God" then that is your belief.  Thus, Athiesm is a firmly held conviction to the lack of existence of a "God"...  Thus, is a religion.  As in every religion, there are moderates and extremists. 

Tom -
I don’t think, by your terms, there is any fundamental difference between agnosticism and atheism.

To take the Poseidon example, for instance, I, like you, do not deny the possibility of his existence. If I’m walking by the sea one day, and he bursts through the foaming surf, waving his trident at me, I’m not going to stick my fingers in the ears, close my eyes, and sing ‘la la la, Poseidon does not exist, because I’m an atheist’. Just because I deny Poseidon’s existence now, based on the currently available evidence, that does not commit me to always denying his existence. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. But that belief is not immutable - it can change in the light of what happens.

Being consistent, I don’t deny the possibility of anything - if I hold my spoon above the table, I don’t deny the possibility that it might fly up instead of falling down. It’s a remote chance, and I would be baffled - but if it happens I won’t deny that it did.

In these terms, agnosticism and atheism are identical. I would argue that the only difference that between agnosticism and atheism is the former’s claim that nothing can ever be known about God - and even I, as an atheist, can accept that. There are an infinite number of imaginary beings about which we will always know nothing. I just think it’s a bit of a waste of time concerning myself with them…

Tom -
I don’t think, by your terms, there is any fundamental difference between agnosticism and atheism.

To take the Poseidon example, for instance, I, like you, do not deny the possibility of his existence. If I’m walking by the sea one day, and he bursts through the foaming surf, waving his trident at me, I’m not going to stick my fingers in the ears, close my eyes, and sing ‘la la la, Poseidon does not exist, because I’m an atheist’. Just because I deny Poseidon’s existence now, based on the currently available evidence, that does not commit me to always denying his existence. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. But that belief is not immutable - it can change in the light of what happens.

Being consistent, I don’t deny the possibility of anything - if I hold my spoon above the table, I don’t deny the possibility that it might fly up instead of falling down. It’s a remote chance, and I would be baffled - but if it happens I won’t deny that it did.

In these terms, agnosticism and atheism are identical. I would argue that the only difference between agnosticism and atheism is the former’s claim that nothing can ever be known about God - and even I, as an atheist, can accept that. There are an infinite number of imaginary beings about which we will always know nothing. I just think it’s a bit of a waste of time concerning myself with them…

Seth I think Neil Peart said it best.

If you decide not to choose you have still made a choice.

Sorry for the double post - the first has a slight typo which I tried to catch but didn’t.

Docdave -
‘If atheism is so benign, why is it atheists that are the most virulent anti-religious?’

Is Rob virulently anti-religious?

The purpose of Dave’s analogy was to point out that to suggest that all atheists are virulently anti-religious is loosely equivalent (albeit exaggerated) to suggesting that Christians beat their wives.

richard-- We both seem to enjoy RUSH.  I liked those words and used them with my students during Health Education classes on values and choosing your life’s paths.  Cignus X-1?  back in ‘the day’

Mark,

 Read the listed definitions from Princeton.  One DENIES the existance, the other cannot make the case one way or the other, and so DOES NOT DENY the existance. 

Agnostism <> Atheism.  Period.   

I would 100% DENY that your spoon will float up  should you release it.  I hve read the explanations and reveiwed several entertaining home experiments one can conduct at home to PROVE that gravity exists. Period. (Assuming you haven’t cashed out your 401K and gone into orbit on Space Ship One, of course.)

Chief,

You are correct sir I have great love of Rush. I think Neil is a Lyrical and musical genius. Those that really know Rush (not Tom Sawyer those that list TS as a rush song do not get it in my opinion) probably appreciate the words more than the music. 

Tom -

At the risk of getting utterly mired in semantics, some other definitions of atheism -

Oxford English Dictionary -

“the theory or belief that God does not exist”

Collins -

“rejection of belief in God”

Chambers -

“disbelief in the existence of God”

Penguin -

“belief or doctrine that there is no deity”

Not one of these dictionaries uses the words ‘deny’ or ‘denial’ at any point - indeed, most of them use the word ‘belief’ instead. Beliefs are subject to change, as I have already argued. My refusal to believe, currently, in Poseidon, God, Baal, Mercury, and so on, does not prohibit me from changing my mind at a later date. I have already argued this -

“Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. But that belief is not immutable - it can change in the light of what happens.”

It is ludicrous to assert that atheists are so dogmatic that they will deny, outright, the potential existence of God. Atheists merely exhibit a scepticism that scales with the available evidence, just as your scepticism about the behaviour of spoons scales with prior experience and theory.

The only thing that renders belief in God different from belief in anything else is the fact that he is by definition unknowable. But as I have already pointed out, the same is true for an infinite number of objects that anyone of us could imagine at any point. So why bother?

Or atheists believe they will see poseidon way way before they will ever see any God or deity. This does not mean they believe in Poseidon though.

No,

If the atheists were skeptical, they would not yet have a belief.  My belief is Christianity is immutable, due to a variety of experiences and such that we will simplify here by calling "research".  I am no longer skeptical. 

Atheists have a belief, true. And they are (most of them) maried to that belief.  No matter how hard you debate with them.

But as my definitions contrasted, agnostics do not have such a belief.  They either recognize that God is unknowable, as you say, or they just don’t care one way or the other.  You could convince them, so far as their unenthusiastic support would carry you, by debating them.  Unlike atheists…

Some conclusions -

If God is knowable, I am atheistic (but undogmatically so)

If he is unknowable, I am agnostic (and don’t really care).

Research that is one of the funniest things I have ever heard.

Sad Mark.

There was a time when gravity was not knowable, yet people still believed they weren’t going to float off the ground.  They believed in gravity without knowing (hmm, knowing that which was unknowable...) how it worked…

There was also a time when man didn’t know how germs worked yet were still held accoutnable for their consequences.  

Someday God will be knowable and we will be judged, just as wtih gravity and disease...  Hope the best for you in the mean time.

And some day Santa will climb down my chimney.

Funny but I do not see how gravity and germs apply they are real.

Like Noah said to his neighbors, "You had better be right."

I realize you may deny (a la, atheism) that the entirety of the globe was flooded.  We agree to disagreee, accepted. 

Agree to disagree Ok that is easy.

However to answer your question no I do not think the entire planet was flooded in any biblical sense and I forward the fact that the bible only references known (at the time points) the whole rest of the undiscovered world was never mentioned in the bible. Oh and get this Christianity is not the largest religion in the world nice God to condemn the majority of people that do not belive like you do. 

Richard -

I didn’t ask a question.  I wasn’t coming to you to get my theology.  I already understand that we as humans (Dave included) are lacking the tools to completely understand the theology my (everyone’s) God gave us…

So the answer to the Big Question (whose religion is better, is right) comes down to who has the most people?  Hardly.  the Question is answered, like every significant question, by the facts, the evidence.  Even if it was only one guy (Newton, Einstein, Franklin, Edison, and on and on) who espousd that viewpoint. 

Before you  pipe up, I recognize that I don’t have the evidence to "prove" Chiristianity.  True.  Didn’t try to make the calim that I did.  Never do.  (Definition of Faith lies within that bit of serendipidty.)

Note, however, that Evolutionists have yet to produce any significant evidence of their "religion".  Change of Topic violation duely noted.

Nope you said you researched it. In order to research something there has to be facts to research that is what made me laugh.

I do not think any numbers make any religion right or wrong I think it is very narrow mided of the christians not to acknowledge a couple of facts like you are not the big dog on the block, your religion is an off shoot of another religion that does not acknowledge your faith and last but not least in order for the fable of Noah to have worked animals that are exclusive to this continent would have had to swim across an ocean to get on the boat which isn’t possible and it would have taken a rather large fleet of boats loaded with food to feed said animals.

You tire me richard, but I was bron stubborn ad I will die as such.  Here I go…

1) My "research", as I lifted from my own line:

that we will simplify here by calling "research"

I offered it in quotes in order to self-proclaim that it was NOT research, as such.  Read more carefully. 

2)  It’s not the Christians who are forcing others to adopt our religion or be killed.  It is the world’s numerically dominant religion, albeit a samll fraction of that religion.

And as for the "vast right wing" religious right that is "forcing God down everyone’s throats", read some history.  Many of our Founding Fathers were Christians, not all, but  many.  And those that weren’t Christian believed in the same philosophy and incorporated said philosophy into our Birth.  Don’t like it?  Sorry.  Facts and pesky things.

3) We are an off-shoot of a religion.  One that all Christians recognize and are ok with.  Interestingly, the Jews are not terribly hostile to us Christians.  Ever stop to wonder why?  

And on a corollary, I am an off-shoot of my father.  That doesn’t mean I won’t become all that he could not be, etc.  Sometimes the plan calls for a growth cycle to produce the end-result.  Read the Bible, if yo like, and you will see that it was God’s PLAN for the Jews to be here, then for Jesus to be here, forming Christianity, and so on...  Part of a plan (not unlike our President’s plan, just because we can’t see it does not mean it isn’t there.)

4) I never argued with your supposition that the Flood only encompassed the Middle East.  I disagree but I let it go, it wasn’t a figh t worht going into without the "research". 

You sound like CV Rick when you won’t let go of a bone that no one is picking with you.

Seems you have the same bone but I will let it go you bore me.

"You could convince agnostics, so far as their unenthusiastic support would carry you, by debating them. Unlike atheists...”

As you state that God is unknowable, I fail to see why it is unreasonable or dogmatic for atheists to suspend belief in him.

“Someday God will be knowable and we will be judged, just as wtih gravity and disease… Hope the best for you in the mean time.”

Well, I hope you picked the right religion -

“By the doctrine of Pascal’s Wager, any religion other than Christianity that attaches everlasting bliss to agreement and everlasting agony to disagreement does equally well. The choice is not betwee Christianity and atheism alone. The choice must be made between all the different religions according to which adherents go to Heaven while everyone else goes to Hell - Islam, for example. Pascal provides no grounds for being a Christian rather than a Muslim. The choice between them is therefore a 50:50 bet.
Worse. Islam is not the only ‘Heaven and Hell’ rival to Christianity. There is also Flintstonism: the view that only those who worship Fred Flintstone will go to Heaven, the rest to Hell. Admittedly, I just made that religion up. But it is a possible religion. Why should only those religions that currently exist receive the benefit of Pascal’s Wager? Nor should anyone object to the lack of evidence for Flintstonism. For it is the starting assumption of Pascal’s Wager that the doctrine in question - Christianity, Islam or Flintstonism - lacks evidence sufficient alone to warrant belief in it.
Once you see that Pascal’s wager supports equally not only Christianity, nor even all established religions, but all possible Heaven and Hell religions, the game is up. For infinitely many religions are possible. Which will you choose? Choose any one of them and the chance that you have made the best bet is not 50:50 (i.e. not 1 in 2), it’s one in infinity: this religion versus all the infinitely many other possible Heaven and Hell religions.
Each possible religion, including Christianity, is but one ticket in a lottery with infinitely many tickets. Each bet has an equal chance of being best: i.e. an infinitessimal chance. Without some evidence, every religion is an equally hopeless bet.”

Which is why I only play the lotto at least I know somebody will eventually get that correct.

Mark -

Your Pascal thing, if I skimmed it well enough,  points towards someone trying to convince others that they have picked the right one.  While it’s true I mentioned the words "convince" and "debate", I never engaged in the practice (here) of trying to convince through debate.  I hope everyone reading this blog has a religion that suits them and I hope they are right.  End.

And in response to your "atheists to suspend belief in him" comment,
I beg of you: Read the definitions posted that show the differences between atheism and agnostism. 

Once again, you (with the other Lefts) have assumed that the similar (though different) definitions are interchageable.  They are not.

Atheists deny the existance.  Agnostics have suspended their belief/non-belief.  

Now, if you or the others disagree with the defintion, feel free to make that case.  But quit mixing and matching, there are no Garanimals here... 

Hey Tom I hate to break to ya there pal but they are on the left, the right, the center some can even get this be on both sides of any issue.

Tom -
I did not suggest you were trying to convince me. I was merely responding to this comment of yours -

“Someday God will be knowable and we will be judged, just as wtih gravity and disease… Hope the best for you in the mean time.”

Which is clearly a reference to my future judgement by your God. I don’t know how else to read that.

“Once again, you (with the other Lefts)”

Whoever said I was left-wing?

Uh Mark I believe Tom said you were left wing just like it was him that posted all of the religious stuff and said we woul be judged.

You see there are people out there and several regulars here that if you do not agree with them then you must be on the left and hate America because after all everybody is either left or right.

Smart people that can think for themselves really scare people like Tom he may have to actually rethink everything he KNOWS. 

Mark -

Yes, I said you and all of us would be judged.  Its a fact.  Even the Muslims believe there is a Judgement (different I suppose).  Why else try to swipe a "head of the 72-Virgin line" card?

But I did not make any attempts to convince, especially not with a comment specifically about judgment.  I guess I don’t see where you are going with your rebuttal.  Seemed to make my point for me... 

And Richard, I am less concerned with people disagreeing with me than I am about them ignoring my points (this is a debate, of sorts) and prattling on about their deal, repeatedly…

Bull

Yes, I said you and all of us would be judged.  Its a fact.

Tom, you might want to explore the definition of fact a bit, it seems from this thread that you are unclear as to what it means. 

I’ll withdrawl the "fact" from my most recent "we’ll all be judged" comment if you like.  Naive, but fine.  Do I still need to define fact, or was this it?

Richard, interested in running for Pres?   Some commenters around here think the job requires a pyschic.  Perhapsince you can judge (pun intended) my internal motives, you believe youself to be such... 

Rick he knows what it is, it is his way of creating superiority for himself after all he knows something is a fact that most of us can refute easily as belief which goes beyond fact. Simple fact judgement is not a fact it is an opinion. 

Richard,

I really don’t understand what you just said.

Tom: yes, that’s what I was refering to.  Personally I don’t think there will be any afterlife judgment and know of no facts supporting such a belief. 

Richard, ditto Ricks comment....

Rick, Fair enough.

Maybe I can help sorry about clarity.

I think that christians state things as fact like judgement that can be proven as non-fact very easily by anybody with a bad tenth grade education as their way of creating I am right and you are wrong superiority. Flipping the coin here they also refuse to accept stated facts if they are not popular like the owning slaves and poor treatment of women stuff.

Richard,

Now I understand.  Thanks. 

Richard -

I withdrew my "fact" when it was pointed out.  As stated, I never intended to present my belief (faith = believe wihtout evidence, but don’t go trashing my religion as I’ve not done the same to yours) of judgment as "fact".

But just for fun, break out your (Poor taste. Still a funny quip, I think.) a "bad tenth grade education" and regale us with the proof that there will no judgment. 

Don’t forget how convinced the world was about it’s flatness and it’s universe-centricness (sp ?) back in the day, though... 

Why is it not letting me post my comments--on this post alone?

Seth Yantiss wrote:

You can not have a "lack of a belief" Dave.  You have to qualify what you don’t believe.  When you qualify what you don’t believe then you have stated a belief.  If you are a "dis-believer of the existence of God" then that is your belief.  Thus, Athiesm is a firmly held conviction to the lack of existence of a "God"...  Thus, is a religion.

All newborns are atheists: They all lack belief in the existence of God. (Don’t worry; they also lack belief in the existence of Saturn, toasters, and Donald Rumsfeld. They’re just babies!) These newborns are simply too young to hold positive beliefs regarding the existence of God (or Rumsfeld)--they can’t believe the statement "God does exist" is true and they can’t believe the statement "God does not exist" is true, because they don’t understand what the word "God" means.

Yet, according to you Seth, what I’ve described is incorrect. In your opinion, newborns actually have "a firmly held conviction to the lack of existence of a God." Because it’s impossible to simply lack a belief in something--no, these newborns have stated their positive beleif that God doesn’t exist.

You can’t even believe that, can you? I mean, you must be able to acknowledge that it is possible to simply lack belief in something, without firmly believing in the nonexistence of that object? I lack belief in the existence of God. I also lack belief in the existence of intelligent life on other planets. But these aren’t positive assertions--I just haven’t seen enough evidence to make positive assertions one way or the other.

For an article that has pretty up-to-date information of the various semantic issues regarding the word "atheism," check it out here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Weak_and_strong_atheism). The "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" breakdown is shared by most philosophers who care about this stuff.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

Seth Yantiss wrote:

You can not have a "lack of a belief" Dave.  You have to qualify what you don’t believe.  When you qualify what you don’t believe then you have stated a belief.  If you are a "dis-believer of the existence of God" then that is your belief.  Thus, Athiesm is a firmly held conviction to the lack of existence of a "God"...  Thus, is a religion.

All newborns are atheists: They all lack belief in the existence of God. (Don’t worry; they also lack belief in the existence of Saturn, toasters, and Donald Rumsfeld. They’re just babies!) These newborns are simply too young to hold positive beliefs regarding the existence of God (or Rumsfeld)--they can’t believe the statement "God does exist" is true and they can’t believe the statement "God does not exist" is true, because they don’t understand what the word "God" means.

Yet, according to you Seth, what I’ve described is incorrect. In your opinion, newborns actually have "a firmly held conviction to the lack of existence of a God." Because it’s impossible to simply lack a belief in something--no, these newborns have stated their positive beleif that God doesn’t exist.

(continued) You can’t even believe that, can you? I mean, you must be able to acknowledge that it is possible to simply lack belief in something, without firmly believing in the nonexistence of that object? I lack belief in the existence of God. I also lack belief in the existence of intelligent life on other planets. But these aren’t positive assertions--I just haven’t seen enough evidence to make positive assertions one way or the other.

For an article that has pretty up-to-date information of the various semantic issues regarding the word "atheism," check it out here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Weak_and_strong_atheism). The "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" breakdown is shared by most philosophers who care about this stuff.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

(Unrelated note: Is there a limit as to how long a single post can be? That’s never happened to me before.)

(continued) You can’t even believe that, can you? I mean, you must be able to acknowledge that it is possible to simply lack belief in something, without firmly believing in the nonexistence of that object? I lack belief in the existence of God. I also lack belief in the existence of intelligent life on other planets. But these aren’t positive assertions--I just haven’t seen enough evidence to make positive assertions one way or the other.

For an article that has pretty up-to-date information of the various semantic issues regarding the word "atheism," check it out here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Weak_and_strong_atheism). The "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" breakdown is shared by most philosophers who care about this stuff.

Weak atheism, sometimes called soft atheism, negative atheism or neutral atheism, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. Strong atheism, also known as hard atheism or positive atheism, is the belief that no deities exist.

Dave, now pay attention to the words here…

From several days ago…
Atheism (according to Princeton U) is "someone who denies the existence of god".  That means a baby cannot be an atheist as they lack the ability for conscious thought (yet).

Agnostic (same source) is "a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)".  This closer to the baby, by the way.

Atheists BELIEVE there is no God, Agnostics DO NOT DENY that God might exist but don’t have enough evidence (I suppose) to prove it in their minds yet. 

Wikipedia vs. Major University ....  I use Wikipedia often but I realize it is populated by regualr folks who are prone to error.  Always good to find a reviewed source when stating facts (like definitions).

Tom: You cannot use a dictionary for a philosophical debate. Sorry. Even if Webster said communism was good, that wouldn’t make it true.

Try Dr. George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God, who will, as you’ll see if you read the book (you won’t), use the exact same terms I used above (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087975124X/qid=1141331492/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-0321825-6426357?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).

"Theism" is defined as the "belief in a god or gods." The term "theism" is sometimes used to designate the belief in a particular kind of god--the peronal god of monotheism--but as used throughout this book, "theism" signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix "a" means "without," so the term "a-theism" literally means "without theism," or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. (7-8)

Yes, you have (again) made my point, by again not bothering to comment on my presentation.
(I re-read and I guess you haven’t exactly made my point, although you have failed to agree/refute my presentation...  Smith’s leap from "without theism" to "without a belief in God" was weak, in my opinion, although I see where he went point A-B-C etc.)

Agnostics don’t belief in my God either, because they (simplifying) dont’ care one way or the other.  

Atheists believe, actively believe, that there is no God (no proof offered, mind you).  They will say, "No He doesn’t exist."  The agnostic will say, "Whatever...  Moving on to tonight’s TV." 

(You’re right, I most likely will not read your book.  More to do with not gonna get out to buy it, not gonna spend my cash on it, and busy, in that order.  Not against reading alternate points of view, outside of the first three reasons...) 

Gotta go.  enjoyed it much better when you engaged with content. Thanks. 

Agnostics don’t belief in my God either, because they (simplifying) dont’ care one way or the other.

No. Agnostics lack KNOWLEDGE of God ("gnosis" is the Greek word for "knowledge"; "a" for "without". It’s entirely possible to be an agnostic theist (meaning you don’t know God exists, but you believe it anyway.)

Atheists believe, actively believe, that there is no God (no proof offered, mind you).  They will say, "No He doesn’t exist." 

STRONG atheists will say that. WEAK atheists will say "No, I lack belief in His existence."

The agnostic will say, "Whatever...  Moving on to tonight’s TV." 

No, the agnostic will say, "My position has nothing at all to do with BELIEF in God’s existence; it concerns KNOWLEDGE of God’s existence, knowledge I lack. I may believe in God and be an agnostic theist, or I may not believe in God and be an agnostic atheist."

You are severely out of your depth on this topic, and would be advised to perform at least cursory research before replying in the future.

Dave wrote:

 No, atheism is a lack of a belief. A lack of a belief in theism, to be exact.

Then Dave Wrote: 

You cannot use a dictionary for a philosophical debate. Sorry. Even if Webster said communism was good, that wouldn’t make it true.

So, Dave, how do you arrive at your definition of Atheism without the dictionary?  Without a clear definition, how do you hold any form of debate?  When the words change meanings, the debate is pointless.

Farfignutons believe that there is no God.  So Farfignutons hold a belief.

Atheists are A (not) Theists (belief in God) and are thus "Disbelievers in God."  Thus, they have a BELIEF that God does not exist.  The mere fact that you cannot grasp this simple concept makes you Aintellectual.

A (not) Sexual (combination of cells from two of a species to reproduce) = NOT SEXUAL.  An Asexual creature does not "Lack Belief" in sexuality, they are NOT Sexual.   

An Amoral person does not "Lack Belief" in morals, they are NOT MORAL.

An Atheist does not "Lack Belief" in God, they DO NOT believe…   WHICH IS A BELIEF!

Call yourself Agnostic...  it would make the debate easier. 

A-intellectual - FUNNY!

And Dave, I didn’t get the impression that "cursory research" was required to play in this sandbox....  [/quip]

I think one of the principle errors being committed here is a confusion of ‘firmly held belief’ (in this particular case, atheism) with dogmatism.

Let me explain. Beliefs or truth claims are said to be ‘defeasible’ when the possibility remains open that they can be shown to be wrong. Beliefs or truth claims that are indefeasible are therefore those for which there is no possibility of their being shown wrong.

‘Defeasibility’ explains the difference between atheism (firmly held belief) and dogmatism. To be dogmatic is to hold that one’s beliefs are indefeasible, when such a refusal to countenance the possibility of being wrong is not justified. A dogmatic atheist is therefore someone who believes that God does not exist and that there is no way that they could possibly be wrong to hold that belief.

Likewise, a dogmatic theist is someone who believes that God exists and that there is no way that they could possibly be wrong to hold that belief.

It would be fair to object to both these dogmatists that their beliefs are unjustified, since there is no way either can be so sure that they are right.

But this does not mean that they should both become agnostics. All it means is that they should allow for the defeasibility of their beliefs: they just need to admit it is possible that they could be wrong. This is not agnosticism, because one can have very strongly held beliefs, and still admit the possibility of being wrong.

I have made this point already in this thread about my possible response to Poseidon springing from the ocean. I have a firmly held belief in his non-existence - but I can still admit that I might be wrong. Precisely the same is true for God - as an atheist, I have a firm belief in his non-existence. But I freely admit that belief might be wrong.

… and an Agnostic would continue to have no opinion on the subject.  As I continue to say, while no one seems to notice. 

(Mark, everything you said about dogma seems like good stuff.  You seem to confirm that an atheist holds a ferevernt belief that there is no God while a Theist holds an equally ferverent belief that there is a God.  No objections, but no discussion of agnostics either....) 

"an Agnostic would continue to have no opinion on the subject.”

Well, that’s not strictly true. They do have an opinion on the subject, namely that nothing can be known about the existence of God. Crucially, I would suggest that this belief can be held just as dogmatically (or ‘fervently’ as the belief of a dogmatic theist or atheist.

So the particular distinction you are trying to make between agnosticism and atheism collapses.

Mark -

Someone finally used the word agnostic.  Thanks for reading and actually responding. 

But I disagree with you that the the distinction collapses.  I can agree that some atheists agnostics (oops) are dogmatic in stating that there is not enough evidence to make a case, however, they leave open the door that some evidence may be provided that will close the door (one way or the other).

This is the distinction that makes an atheist (and very likely a "theist" so hard to deal with; they will not consider any evidence. 

I will say that I would rather be tied to a tree with a theist than an atheist.  Most (in my experience) theists (ie; Christians) are willing to let you have oyur own opinion, at worst they will say, "you are going to Hell". 

An atheist, on the other hand, will (again, my experience) throw insults and vehement hate and more towards you while tied to the tree. 

Sorry Tom I just got back on this post and must have missed your previous email and my sixth grade education thanks you for giving me 4 more years (now I do not care who you are that is funny)

Anyway I can not prove nor disprove judgement.......So I do not present it as fact or even a possibility. I can however prove based on simple fact that a lot of the bible stories could not have happened the way the were portrayed, which again is my entire point. You select judgement knowing that it can not be proven or disproven but ignore all of the other things that are frankly impossible, which again is my problem with most christians and there superiority issues, they pick and choose what they believe and which issues are acceptable for debate.

I have to admit I have lost the 6th grade/10th grade gist.  Nothing serious was meant by it, beyond ribbing among (pressumably) frinedly folks have a chat…

But the prove/disprove judgment thing -

You admit that you can neither prove/disprove it, yet you still insist I quit believing in it?  Why?

I’ve not mandated that you believe in it, for a variety of reasons, one of which is that I can’t make the "scientific" case for it.  I simply tell you I believe in it, and if you’re willing I’d be happy to tell you why I do.  Your free then to make your own mind up.

And the deal with the Bible stories being provably false, I disagree (without a ready-at-the-hip answer to any you might bring up).  There are continuous results showing up in reputable sources that state, one by one, that the stories are (getting more and more) provable. And many of these are being proven by the very people who set out the "prove" that they don’t exist.  But after years/decades of reasearch and digging (literally) they have come to the (pride-shattering) conclusion that there is evidence.

And then, there is always the "fact" that I believe in supernatural events having happened (rarely) because God so desired them to happen.  Parting of the sea, Burning bush, Feeding 5,000+, etc.  (In case you are asking, I believe He would desire them to occur to convince, beyond a shadow of adoubt to those present, that it could only be done by [a] God.  Sort of like saying, "So listen up!" 

And off the topic - Your dad was a Corpsman with time in-country and you are (unless I have mixed you with someone else) a Left, uh, Liberal?  Surprised…

See there you go again got to put people in your box.

I said that I can neither prove or disprove that is why I put neither forward as fact. I can also point out a shit load of people that have disproven bible facts some of them while trying to prove them.

My Dad was a corpsman he was on the ground big time and he builds boxes just like you.

I have been called a leftie on this sight many times and I do not get it I am a registered Libertarian which kind of puts me in the middle and that is kind of where I lay. At times I think the some points on the right are spot on and at other times I think those on the left are, the big difference as I see it is A. I make those decisions for myself and B. After I make the decision I have been known to change my mind, both of these things can not be said of several posters here yourself included.

Now I am begginning to remember why I stopped responding to this post. You bore me.

I can;t get over your Dad being on the ground.  I think it is preventing me from disliking you as much, (grinning… relax)

But whileit is true you didn’t insist I give up my believe in judgment, you called me "really dumb" for believing it.  But I haven’t done the same to you or the others.  I’d like you to believe what I do (cuz I know it’s right, of course) but if you don’t the worse ytou get called is a Leftie (and I agree that Libertarians get a bum rap, being pushed to the Left side of things...)

Anyway, gotta go.  Enjoy!  Say thanks to your Dad for me, please.   

"This is the distinction that makes an atheist (and very likely a “theist") so hard to deal with; they will not consider any evidence.” (my emphasis).

I’m afraid that is simply wrong. Refusal to consider evidence is a characteristic of a dogmatist, not of an atheist or a theist. Both atheists and theists are perfectly capable of being open to evidence and willing to change their minds.

True, by strict definition.  But I was unclear.

I was referring to "most" atheists and "many" (most, perhaps) theists… the dogmatic and fervent ones. 

Tom -
At last, some agreement .

Sorry if I seemed snippy in my last post, and for my (ahem) dogmatism in general…

YAY!!!!  So can we now agree that "Dogmatic Atheists" could be considered "Religious"? 

Thus their views on "God" in public would fall under the establishment of religion clauses of the constitution and, thereby, dismissed?

Seth -
Not qualified to answer that one.

But I think you’re making a bit of an assumption.

We’ve now made the distinction between dogmatic and undogmatic atheists (finally! 90 posts later!). Crucially, however, I would suggest that dogmatism regarding disbelief in God is by no means the same thing as dogmatism regarding legislating against religion.

For instance, it is quite easy to conceive a person who dogmatically insisted that God does not exist and would refuse to change his opinion, ever (a dogmatic atheist), who simultaneously had no interest in legislation against the beliefs of others (i.e. was undogmatic in respect of the issue you raise).

The two areas are quite separate and it is wrong to blur them together.

Another thought has just occurred to me -

It is equally possible to conceive of an undogmatic atheist who dogmatically wanted to legislate against God.

But by these terms, anyone who dogmatically argued against anything would be considered religious, consequently their opinions

“would fall under the establishment of religion clauses of the constitution and, thereby, dismissed.”

I hope you’re not making that argument.

The two areas are quite separate and it is wrong to blur them together.

Particularly since one of them--the legislation bit--is contingent on what country you live in. Would Michael Newdow be "dogmatic" in wanting to legislate against religion if he lived in a country like Saudi Arabia, where such sentiments might get him killed?