Turning around in neighbor's driveway
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Would Consumer Reports say this is a shady practice?
Next: Seat Belt: Will You Get Ticketed If You Show Medical Exemption?
From: Martin Phipps on 4 May 2007 13:55 On May 5, 1:08 am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...(a)jonez.net> wrote: > Jeckyl wrote: > > "¥ UltraMan ¥" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote in message > >> Jeckyl wrote: > >>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote in message > >>>> Jeckyl wrote: > >>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote in message > >>>>>>> but again, no code of ehtics or values. So no, it would not be a > >>>>>>> religion in any useful sense of the word. > >>>>>> Exactly. > >>>>> There you go .. there was no need for the 'bullshit' remark > >>>> Yes there was. Asserting that A-theism might possibly > >>>> be a "religion" is a tautological impossibility. > >>> Not really .. just not in any useful way. Strong atheism has a > >>> particular belief that all strong atheists share. But that is not a > >>> useful definition of a religion, as then anything that people hold > >>> as true could be a religion. > >> Which is why it is misleading to conflate the terms belief, faith and > >> religion. > > > I'm not the one doing that. > > Yes, you are. > > > Belief is anything you hold to be true (especially without proof) > > Faith is firm belief (usually with no proof) > > In the context of A-Theism and Theism, the "especially without proof" > part is the key element of the definition, otherwise the discussion > and definitions become meaningless. > > A-Theism is the ANTONYM of Theism, ipso facto. We're not going to prove anything with semantics. The fact is that atheism has no beliefs, no dogma, no rituals, none of the things that are associated with religion. People assume that because theism and atheism rhyme that they are similar. That's dumb. Martin
From: Christopher A.Lee on 4 May 2007 19:12 On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:06:28 -0500, Kent Wills <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote: >As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 10:37:06 +1000, "Jeckyl" ><noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>"Kent Wills" <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:hatk331kpodcvs6mel0a1gmeklc6rq8qo8(a)4ax.com... >>> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 03:14:47 +1000, "Jeckyl" >>> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote: >>>>>>> I will gladly show that your pig-ignorant grotesque >>>>>>> perverted superstition that you call christianity is >>>>>>> utterly false. >>>> >>>>Please present this proof. >>>> >>> >>> I've been asking for proof that atheism is correct for a very >>> long time. >> >>Easy .. >> >>The theist position is to know that god exists > > To claim to KNOW is to claim to have proof. No sane person >would claim to KNOW there is a god. > I do believe, but freely admit I can't prove that God exists. Then you're an agnostic theist. >>The atheist position is to not know that god exists > > That's an agnostic's position. No, because it's not even part of their world view. >>There is no proof that god exists > > Exactly. It's a belief. Somebody else's belief. The demands for proof are when they beg the question by rudely and stupidly talking about it to people outside their religion. Basically "put up or shut up". But they have neither the integrity nor the courtesy to do either. >>We cannot conclude that god exists or does not exist >>Gods existance is unknown >>The atheist position is correct >> > > That's not the atheist position. You've done a GREAT job of >explaining the agnostic position. Only in the ignorant imagination of people who don't know what an atheist is.
From: DanielSan on 4 May 2007 23:09 Fred G. Mackey wrote: > DanielSan wrote: > >> Fred G. Mackey wrote: >> >>> Jeckyl wrote: >>> >>>> "Kent Wills" <compuelf(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:hatk331kpodcvs6mel0a1gmeklc6rq8qo8(a)4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 4 May 2007 03:14:47 +1000, "Jeckyl" >>>>> <noone(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> _ Prof. Jonez _ <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I will gladly show that your pig-ignorant grotesque >>>>>>>>> perverted superstition that you call christianity is >>>>>>>>> utterly false. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Please present this proof. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I've been asking for proof that atheism is correct for a very >>>>> long time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Easy .. >>>> >>>> The theist position is to know that god exists >>>> The atheist position is to not know that god exists >>>> There is no proof that god exists >>>> We cannot conclude that god exists or does not exist >>>> Gods existance is unknown >>>> The atheist position is correct >>>> >>>> >>> That's not a proof. >>> >>> Furthermore, the most widley accepted definition of atheism (as well >>> as the primary one listed by dictionaries) is that it is the belief >>> that there are no gods >> >> >> >> Err, not quite. >> >> atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. >> [Random House Dictionary] > > > That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY > definition. There's no such thing as a "primary" or "secondary" definition. > >> >> atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. >> [American Heritage Dictionary] > > > It still includes "denial", doesn't it? What, you didn't like the > secondary definition in this case? Yes. We deny the existence of God or gods. > >> >> atheism: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods >> [WordNet 3.0] >> > > That's the SECONDARY definition. I notice you left out the PRIMARY > definition. > > > Didn't like this definition either I see: > > American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - > Cite This Source > atheism [(ay-thee-iz-uhm)] > > Denial that there is a God. (Compare agnosticism.) Yes, that's accurate. We deny that there is a God. > > > >> atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of deities. >> [Wiktionary] > > > Even this poor excuse for a dictionary includes "denial" in its primary > definition. So? > >> >> Want more? >> > > Naw - you'll just selectively ignore primary definitions. Whereas you make up things like "primary definitions". But, let me guess, you think that "dog ear" isn't a folded corner of a page in a book for placemarking purposes. > >> >>> - NOT that it is a synonym with agnosticism. >> >> >> >> Agnosticism (and gnosticism) deals with the knowledge (or lack >> thereof) of spiritual matters... > > > You've got that backwards. gnosis: knowledge of spiritual matters; mystical knowledge. [Random House Dictionary] gnosis: Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics. gnostic: Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge. [American Heritage Dictionary] gnosis: intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths; said to have been possessed by ancient Gnostics [WordNet] gnosis: an esoteric form of knowledge or spiritual truth, sought by the Gnostics [Wiktionary] gnosis: Etymology: Greek gnOsis, literally, knowledge, from gignOskein esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation [Merriam-Webster] > >> >> Atheism (and theism) deals with the existence (or lack thereof) of >> deities. >> > > It deals with BELIEF Theism does. Atheism deals with the lack of belief. > >> Atheists do not believe in the existence of deities. Period. End >> of discussion. >> > > No, they BELIEVE there are none Are you trying to tell me what I believe and what I don't believe? They (and I) don't believe in deities. Period. -- ******************************************************* * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *-----------------------------------------------------* * Christianity: A belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie * * who was his own father will let you live forever * * if you pretend to eat his flesh, drink his blood, * * and telepathically tell him that you accept him as * * your master, so he can remove an evil force from * * your soul that he put there a long time ago as pun- * * ishment for all humanity because a rib-woman made * * from a dust-man was convinced by a talking snake * * to eat fruit from a magical tree. * *******************************************************
From: Jeckyl on 4 May 2007 23:05 "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote in message news:5a17adF1kqdv2U1(a)mid.individual.net... > Jeckyl wrote: >> "Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1178264123.007452.120210(a)n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> On May 4, 3:25 pm, "� UltraMan �" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote: >>> Jeckyl wrote: >>>> "� UltraMan �" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>>> news:59vq7sF2lekskU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> Jeckyl wrote: >>>>>> "� UltraMan �" <u...(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>>>>> news:59vlrtFbi4qnU1(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have >>>>>>> been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to >>>>>>> explain the universe. >>> >>>>>> Yes. That is a belief. >>> >>>>> No >>> >>>> Does a strong atheist hold that it is true? ifso , then it is a >>>> belif of the strong atheist. >>> >>>> Belief is the absence of Knowledge. >>> >>> More accurately, belief is the end of reason. >> >> Yes .. because once you have completed your reasoning, the result if a >> belief. > > Nope. Belief isn't the conclusion of reason, it's the absense of reason. Sorry .. but that is incorrect. A Belief is anything that one holds to be true, ESCPECIALLY when there is evidence or proof that it is so. That one CAN believe without evidence does not mean the ALL belief is without evidence.
From: Jeckyl on 4 May 2007 23:08
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof(a)jonez.net> wrote in message news:5a17lrF2ks1ofU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Jeckyl wrote: >> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>> Jeckyl wrote: >>>> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message >>>>> Jeckyl wrote: >>>>>> "� UltraMan �" <ultra(a)man.jp> wrote in message > >>>>>>> Strong atheism holds that no god(s) ever proposed by man have >>>>>>> been shown to exist, nor is their existance even necessary to >>>>>>> explain the universe. >>>>>> Yes. That is a belief. >>>>> No >>>> Does a strong atheist hold that it is true? ifso , then it is a >>>> belif of the strong atheist. >>> Belief is the absence of Knowledge. >> Not at all .. where did you get that idea? Belief is whatever you >> hold to be true, in particular things for which you have evidence and >> knowledge. >> see http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief "conviction of >> the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon >> especially when based on examination of evidence" >> >> Belief CAN also apply to things for which there is no evidence / >> proof .. this is sometimes also called 'Faith'. >> >>>>> it's a rational and logical conclusion given the facts. >>>> What facts are they .. >>> All of them. >> >> In other words, you do not have any facts at all >> >>>> do you have a proof that god does not exist? >>> Which god in particular? >> >> Any will do .. the Christian God would be a good start. >> >>>>>>>> but agan, no code of ehtics or values. So no, it would not be a >>>>>>>> religion in any useful sense of the word. >>>>>>> Exactly. >>>>>> There you go .. there was no need for the 'bullshit' remark >>>>> Yes there was. Asserting that A-theism might possibly >>>>> be a "religion" is a tautological impossibility. >>>> Not really .. just not in any useful way. Strong atheism has a >>>> particular belief that all strong atheists share. But that is not a >>>> useful definition of a religion, as then anything that people hold >>>> as true could be a religion. >>> Which is why it is misleading to conflate the terms belief, faith and >>> religion. >> I'm not the one doing that. > Yes, you are. No .. please indicate wher ei have done that >> Belief is anything you hold to be true (especially without proof) >> Faith is firm belief (usually with no proof) > > In the context of A-Theism and Theism, the "especially without proof" > part is the key element of the definition, otherwise the discussion > and definitions become meaningless. > > A-Theism is the ANTONYM of Theism, ipso facto. Exactly .. it is not having a belief in any god. >> Religion is a set of believe, valud and codes of ethics. >> I've not conflated anything > > Yes, you were perverting the context of belief and non-belief. No .. I did not > You are circularly asserting that non-belief is a belief, which is > a tautological absurdity. No .. I did not. In fact I have consistently said that atheism is NOT a belief, and corrected those who say that it is. Please .. get your facts straing before you go making accusations. >>>> If the woman in question had put on a great deal of weight and was >>>> seen shopping in the maternity section of the store, there was >>>> probable cause to believe she was pregnant. That she turned out >> Ah .. it appears he is confusing "false" with "unreasonable". > Kent is often confused, as he's a rabid bible-thumper who lives > in a world of ignorance and denial. >> I take it that someone pointed that out, and he couldn't (or wouldn't) >> see >> the difference. > One of the primary characteristics of a theist. Indeed. |