Discussion:
Has any book inspired you to take action?
(too old to reply)
Paul S Person
2020-04-12 16:26:42 UTC
Permalink
<snippo>
Show that he ever denied a single fact.
He did that when he stated that I posted ‘anti-religious propaganda’,
That’s denial right there.
It's called xtian apologetics.....
One of the prime tenets is to fudge definitions.
Most of the rest are: assert, assert, assert.
It’scalled Lying Fior The Lord, and is among the things that the great
theologians of the past explitly said to not do, for it brings the Lord into
disrepute.
I hate Liars For The Lord.
As do I.

But I did not deny his /facticity/. Did you notice that or were you
too busy applauding?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-04-12 16:29:57 UTC
Permalink
There are those who worship at the altar of Mac or
of Linux or of Cold Fusion of Republicanism who do not consider the
Mac or Linux or Cold Fusion or Republicanism to be "gods".
Obtuseness does not contribute to discussion.
Looks more like a refreshing bit of sanity to me.

Just because /you/ don't like it doesn't make it false.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-04-12 16:53:04 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
There is something in the human psyche that seems to need religion. If
it doesn't get it from a church it gets it somewhere else--atheism,
Apple, Communism, etc all seem to push the same button.
People want to cope with he inexplicable.
BTW, the "belief is hardwired" idea is not set in stone.
[quote]
Disbelieve it or not, ancient history suggests that atheism
is as natural to humans as religion
People in the ancient world did not always believe in the gods,
a new study suggests – casting doubt on the idea that religious
belief is a "default setting" for humans.
Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived
in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world – raising considerable
doubts about whether humans really are "wired" for religion – a new study
suggests.
The claim is the central proposition of a new book by Tim Whitmarsh,
Professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University
of Cambridge. In it, he suggests that atheism – which is typically seen
as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-
Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in
most civilisations since.
[/quote]
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/disbelieve-it-or-not-ancient-history-suggests-that-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion
That's pretty much a "gimme", given:

1) Plato. Refers to to his "daemon", but ignores the local deities. He
may have made the odd reference to "god", but it's never anyone
specific.

2) Aristotle. Has a lot to say about the gods -- just not those being
worshipped. No, /his/ gods are the planets plus the sun/moon, which
revolve in circles around the Earth and, being made entirely of the
Fifth Element, are immortal.

and, IIRC, many other ancients. Most of them had the good sense to
keep their opinions to themselves, lest the mob attack them, although
I think the Roman Empire reached a point where those favored by the
Emperor could be more courageous.

Also, such philosphies as Stoicism and Epicureanism should not be
overlooked. These became accepted among the upper classes (if I
understand this correctly) as a form of religion tolerated by the
state, gods or no gods.

Also, the Romans were rather lax: most religions were tolerated, so
long as they tolerated others. Jews were tolerated, despite not being
tolerant themselves, as having a long tradition of being different
from everybody else. Christians were not so lucky. Part of this
"laxness", of course, was political: they sealed their conquests by
importing the defeated peoples' gods, making them supporters of Rome.

3) Christians (and Jews) were regarded as atheists. This is because
the Greek word, atheioi, literally means "godless" -- and referred to
little statues of various deities most people kept in their homes.
Christians (and Jews) had no such statues, and so were (literally)
atheioi. At what point this acquired a more abstract meaning I am not
sure, but I would not be surprised to find it was quite early.
See also: Review of Tim Whitmarsh's "Battling the Gods"
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/battling-the-gods-atheism-in-the-ancient-world-by-tim-whitmarsh-book-review-a6881636.html
[snip]
As to state-supported churches, my understanding is:

1) Many colonies had them; some did not.
2) Different colonies that had a state church had /different
denominations/. This may have mostly a New England/Southern States
(Congregational/Episcopalian) difference.
3) Those that had them did not want a National Church imposed on them
because it might be a different denomination; indeed, /any/
denomination chosen would be different for some of them. Those had
none didn't want one either.

So the point of the amendment was that the Federal Government /could
not/ establish a National Church. The States were left free to
continue.

If I have my timing right, it took 40 to 50 years for all of the
Established Churches to be disestablished. This is not actually a
particularly short period of time.

And it produced what I was taught was the longest word in the English
language (this was, of course, before Disney's /Mary Poppins/):

antidisestablishmentarianism

which was a movement opposed to disestablishing the Established
Church.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Robert Carnegie
2020-04-12 16:55:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 18:25:52 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
<snip>
I can respect other people's beliefs and definitions.
I can put up with (not necessarily respect) beliefs.
But NEVER wandering definitions.
If folks want to know what a JW is.....ask a JW.
If they want to know what an atheist is....ask an atheist.
....not some rebellious teen who hates his baptist parents....but someone who has made a thoughtful study of it.
(Ken Ham's definition doesn't matter)
It is pretty hard to treat other's beliefs like your own.
" I believe in the Truth.
You follow a religion.
He is trapped in a cult."
I don't believe a deity exists. I do not believe a deity does not
exist. The matter of whether a deity exists is a matter of crashing
indifference to me. I simply don't _care_. I do not hold that people
who believe in a deity are deluded idiots. I do not hold that people
who do not believe in a deity are superior beings. So what does that
make me?
It appears to make you someone who just told me
to stop proselytizing opinions that you yourself hold.
Although I do think that people who believe in a deity
are deluded. That includes my friends, family, and
previously me: so not every one is an idiot.
That's the thing, you think that you know The Truth
and that they are Wrong. I don't believe that I know
The Truth.
So your objection is to what I think?

Or perhaps you've mistaken me for the sort of
atheist who fries bacon outside mosques and
synagogues - or the Elim Pentecostal - to lure
out the faithful to delicious damnation.
Paul S Person
2020-04-12 17:02:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:46:32 -0400, J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 10:19:54 -0700, Paul S Person
<snippo>
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
So the State of Connecticut is a religion?
It recognizes births by issuing birth certificates.
It recognizes adulthood by granting the privilege of being able to
sign binding contracts (or drive a car or vote or purchase alcoholic
beverages--pick whichever one you like as recognition of adulthood).
It "celebrates" weddings by accepting a fee for a piece of paper
stating that a couple is wed.
It buries the dead whose families are unable to pay for doing so, and
issues death certificates.
So by your logic it is a religion. So is the government of
Massachussetts. And every other state in the Union.
And who do you think did this, say, 500 years ago?

Ever wonder why geneologists research those musty old parish records?

Untwining Church and State had that effect, functionally speaking.
/Somebody/ had to keep the records -- somebody everyone would go to.
Which ruled the formerly-Established Church (to which everyone, except
the Jews, belonged from birth) out.

This is one reason the gay marriage issue was so contentious: even
though a legal marriage has long been something the State creates and
registers, it is still seen as acting for the Church (in some vague
and general sense) and performing an essentially religious function.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-04-12 17:17:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:02:59 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:46:32 -0400, J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 10:19:54 -0700, Paul S Person
<snippo>
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
So the State of Connecticut is a religion?
It recognizes births by issuing birth certificates.
It recognizes adulthood by granting the privilege of being able to
sign binding contracts (or drive a car or vote or purchase alcoholic
beverages--pick whichever one you like as recognition of adulthood).
It "celebrates" weddings by accepting a fee for a piece of paper
stating that a couple is wed.
It buries the dead whose families are unable to pay for doing so, and
issues death certificates.
So by your logic it is a religion. So is the government of
Massachussetts. And every other state in the Union.
And who do you think did this, say, 500 years ago?
What difference does it make who did this 500 years ago? You gave a
definition of "religion". 50 state governments in the United States
fit your definition. Ergo you are contending that each of those
governments is a religion.
Post by Paul S Person
Ever wonder why geneologists research those musty old parish records?
What relevance does this have to your definition of religion?
Post by Paul S Person
Untwining Church and State had that effect, functionally speaking.
/Somebody/ had to keep the records -- somebody everyone would go to.
Which ruled the formerly-Established Church (to which everyone, except
the Jews, belonged from birth) out.
So are you withdrawing your definition or are you just going to
bluster?
Post by Paul S Person
This is one reason the gay marriage issue was so contentious: even
though a legal marriage has long been something the State creates and
registers, it is still seen as acting for the Church (in some vague
and general sense) and performing an essentially religious function.
Which has exactly what relationship to the validity of your definition
of religion?
Paul S Person
2020-04-13 16:20:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 13:17:12 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:02:59 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 13:46:32 -0400, J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 10:19:54 -0700, Paul S Person
<snippo>
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
So the State of Connecticut is a religion?
It recognizes births by issuing birth certificates.
It recognizes adulthood by granting the privilege of being able to
sign binding contracts (or drive a car or vote or purchase alcoholic
beverages--pick whichever one you like as recognition of adulthood).
It "celebrates" weddings by accepting a fee for a piece of paper
stating that a couple is wed.
It buries the dead whose families are unable to pay for doing so, and
issues death certificates.
So by your logic it is a religion. So is the government of
Massachussetts. And every other state in the Union.
And who do you think did this, say, 500 years ago?
What difference does it make who did this 500 years ago? You gave a
definition of "religion". 50 state governments in the United States
fit your definition. Ergo you are contending that each of those
governments is a religion.
You have a point.

I omitted a line that, in retrospect, should have been present as the
/first/ statement in my response:

You are correct about this. However, I suggest that understanding how
and why this happened would be helpful.

Thanks for allowing me to improve my post!

<additional snarking snipped>
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-04-12 17:08:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
<snip>
I can respect other people's beliefs and definitions.
I can put up with (not necessarily respect) beliefs.
But NEVER wandering definitions.
If folks want to know what a JW is.....ask a JW.
If they want to know what an atheist is....ask an atheist.
....not some rebellious teen who hates his baptist parents....but someone who has made a thoughtful study of it.
(Ken Ham's definition doesn't matter)
It is pretty hard to treat other's beliefs like your own.
" I believe in the Truth.
You follow a religion.
He is trapped in a cult."
An excellent example of Irregular Declension in English.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-04-12 17:09:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 21:04:06 -0400, J. Clarke
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
<snip>
I can respect other people's beliefs and definitions.
I can put up with (not necessarily respect) beliefs.
But NEVER wandering definitions.
If folks want to know what a JW is.....ask a JW.
If they want to know what an atheist is....ask an atheist.
....not some rebellious teen who hates his baptist parents....but someone who has made a thoughtful study of it.
(Ken Ham's definition doesn't matter)
It is pretty hard to treat other's beliefs like your own.
" I believe in the Truth.
You follow a religion.
He is trapped in a cult."
I don't believe a deity exists. I do not believe a deity does not
exist. The matter of whether a deity exists is a matter of crashing
indifference to me. I simply don't _care_. I do not hold that people
who believe in a deity are deluded idiots. I do not hold that people
who do not believe in a deity are superior beings. So what does that
make me?
An agnostic.

Well, provided the definition hasn't shifted /too/ much in the last
few decades.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-04-12 17:11:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 14:10:21 -0700, Alan Baker
I am losing track of the discussion (insert snarky comment here), mainly because I have no idea what is meant by "anti-religious fanatic". Whenever the phrase appears, it seems always to be in the context of a teen stomping out of the room, screaming that the parents are JERKS !!
https://www.catholicleague.org/anti-religious-fanaticism/
fixed it for you.
Not a definition......simply repetition of assertion.
Really? I thought it gave an example.
And came from an interesting source.
[ snip mumbling ]
....and....WTF is an "atheist religion" ?
Twenty years ago, posters on a certain news group /regularly/ used
Buddhism as a godless religion, to defeat the position that, to be a
religion, one or more deities must be involved.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
And anything that /functions/ as a religion but denies that it is one
is what I call (for short) an "atheist religion". Because they
generally are atheist; that is, their theology consists of one
God does not exist
which could, theoretically, be generalized to
no deity of any sort exists
but rarely is.
Communism /definitely/ qualifies. And I would include Secular
Humanism, having been exposed to an attempt at conversion in High
School.
They could, of course, also be called "ball-less religions", as in
"they don't have the balls to admit their true nature", but I would
regard that a needlessly insulting.
I regard your analysis as puerile freshman sociological bullshit.
You've made "religion" into a useless term.
You mean, of course,

You've made "religion" into a term whose definition can actually be
used.

There, fixed it for you.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-04-12 17:21:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:11:47 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 14:10:21 -0700, Alan Baker
I am losing track of the discussion (insert snarky comment here), mainly because I have no idea what is meant by "anti-religious fanatic". Whenever the phrase appears, it seems always to be in the context of a teen stomping out of the room, screaming that the parents are JERKS !!
https://www.catholicleague.org/anti-religious-fanaticism/
fixed it for you.
Not a definition......simply repetition of assertion.
Really? I thought it gave an example.
And came from an interesting source.
[ snip mumbling ]
....and....WTF is an "atheist religion" ?
Twenty years ago, posters on a certain news group /regularly/ used
Buddhism as a godless religion, to defeat the position that, to be a
religion, one or more deities must be involved.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
And anything that /functions/ as a religion but denies that it is one
is what I call (for short) an "atheist religion". Because they
generally are atheist; that is, their theology consists of one
God does not exist
which could, theoretically, be generalized to
no deity of any sort exists
but rarely is.
Communism /definitely/ qualifies. And I would include Secular
Humanism, having been exposed to an attempt at conversion in High
School.
They could, of course, also be called "ball-less religions", as in
"they don't have the balls to admit their true nature", but I would
regard that a needlessly insulting.
I regard your analysis as puerile freshman sociological bullshit.
You've made "religion" into a useless term.
You mean, of course,
You've made "religion" into a term whose definition can actually be
used.
There, fixed it for you.
Used for what purpose? To show that your definition is wrong? To
convince others that all governments are religions? To demonstrate
that you are an idiot?
o***@gmail.com
2020-04-12 18:09:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Used for what purpose?
.....distorting your context.....

Time has come for me to simply watch and chuckle.
Paul S Person
2020-04-13 16:25:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 13:21:10 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:11:47 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 14:10:21 -0700, Alan Baker
I am losing track of the discussion (insert snarky comment here), mainly because I have no idea what is meant by "anti-religious fanatic". Whenever the phrase appears, it seems always to be in the context of a teen stomping out of the room, screaming that the parents are JERKS !!
https://www.catholicleague.org/anti-religious-fanaticism/
fixed it for you.
Not a definition......simply repetition of assertion.
Really? I thought it gave an example.
And came from an interesting source.
[ snip mumbling ]
....and....WTF is an "atheist religion" ?
Twenty years ago, posters on a certain news group /regularly/ used
Buddhism as a godless religion, to defeat the position that, to be a
religion, one or more deities must be involved.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
And anything that /functions/ as a religion but denies that it is one
is what I call (for short) an "atheist religion". Because they
generally are atheist; that is, their theology consists of one
God does not exist
which could, theoretically, be generalized to
no deity of any sort exists
but rarely is.
Communism /definitely/ qualifies. And I would include Secular
Humanism, having been exposed to an attempt at conversion in High
School.
They could, of course, also be called "ball-less religions", as in
"they don't have the balls to admit their true nature", but I would
regard that a needlessly insulting.
I regard your analysis as puerile freshman sociological bullshit.
You've made "religion" into a useless term.
You mean, of course,
You've made "religion" into a term whose definition can actually be
used.
There, fixed it for you.
Used for what purpose? To show that your definition is wrong? To
convince others that all governments are religions? To demonstrate
that you are an idiot?
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.

All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to
recognize.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-04-13 22:16:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 09:25:56 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 13:21:10 -0400, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 10:11:47 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 14:10:21 -0700, Alan Baker
I am losing track of the discussion (insert snarky comment here), mainly because I have no idea what is meant by "anti-religious fanatic". Whenever the phrase appears, it seems always to be in the context of a teen stomping out of the room, screaming that the parents are JERKS !!
https://www.catholicleague.org/anti-religious-fanaticism/
fixed it for you.
Not a definition......simply repetition of assertion.
Really? I thought it gave an example.
And came from an interesting source.
[ snip mumbling ]
....and....WTF is an "atheist religion" ?
Twenty years ago, posters on a certain news group /regularly/ used
Buddhism as a godless religion, to defeat the position that, to be a
religion, one or more deities must be involved.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
And anything that /functions/ as a religion but denies that it is one
is what I call (for short) an "atheist religion". Because they
generally are atheist; that is, their theology consists of one
God does not exist
which could, theoretically, be generalized to
no deity of any sort exists
but rarely is.
Communism /definitely/ qualifies. And I would include Secular
Humanism, having been exposed to an attempt at conversion in High
School.
They could, of course, also be called "ball-less religions", as in
"they don't have the balls to admit their true nature", but I would
regard that a needlessly insulting.
I regard your analysis as puerile freshman sociological bullshit.
You've made "religion" into a useless term.
You mean, of course,
You've made "religion" into a term whose definition can actually be
used.
There, fixed it for you.
Used for what purpose? To show that your definition is wrong? To
convince others that all governments are religions? To demonstrate
that you are an idiot?
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to
recognize.
So according to you the State of Connecticut _is_ a religion?

OK, if that's what you believe, but you have just managed the rather
difficult feat of making Quadi look sane.
Titus G
2020-04-14 04:01:11 UTC
Permalink
On 14/04/20 4:25 am, Paul S Person wrote:
snip
Post by Paul S Person
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
Is your real name Paul S People?
Post by Paul S Person
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to
recognize.
The user of asynchronous communication as practised here does NOT make
the affirmative statement that synchronous communication does not exist.

An asexual person does NOT make the affirmative statement that sex does
not exist.

A Corvid-19 asymptomatic person does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a Corvid-19 symptom does not exist.

An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Kevrob
2020-04-14 10:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
You might want to learn the distinction between a "garden
variety atheist" and an anti-theist. The first usually doesn't
instigate arguments about religion, but might object to religion
being brought into social situations where it is inappropriate
to do so. Of course, there are people on the other side of the
faith/disbelief divide for whom no ghod-talk is appropriate in
all situations. To them, objection to, for example, an invocation
at a tax-payer-funded event is "anti-religious propaganda," as
opposed to defending the constitution in countries that have
norms such as the US First Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-theism

Kevin R
Titus G
2020-04-14 20:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
An atheist is blah blah blah.
You might want to learn the distinction between a "garden
variety atheist" and an anti-theist.
You might want to learn to read stuff in context without snipping.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2020-04-14 17:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Twaddle.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"The more wrong a guy gets, the louder he yells at the person trying to
help him. Which, inevitably, makes him even wronger. But less helped."
-- Merlin Mann
Titus G
2020-04-14 20:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Twaddle.
Cheers - Jaimie
Paul S Preson has been arguing that point seriously so I was trying to
show it was twaddle.

Here is what was snipped:
The user of asynchronous communication as practised here does NOT make
the affirmative statement that synchronous communication does not exist.

An asexual person does NOT make the affirmative statement that sex does
not exist.

A Corvid-19 asymptomatic person does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a Corvid-19 symptom does not exist.

So for a sentence beginning with "An atheist" to follow that pattern,
the logical expectation is:
An atheist does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a god does not exist.
but instead I wrote Paul's definition as illogical twaddle.

It appears from Kevrob's and your reply that perhaps I was being too
cryptic.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2020-04-15 01:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Twaddle.
Cheers - Jaimie
Paul S Preson has been arguing that point seriously so I was trying to
show it was twaddle.
Oh, I killfiled him a while ago so didn't get the intended context.
Apologies.
Post by Titus G
It appears from Kevrob's and your reply that perhaps I was being too
cryptic.
Unfortunately the default position for sarcasm (and similar) in text. No
matter how insane the comment, there's always someone who'd be saying it
seriously so....

Cheers - Jaimie
--
If you think it's simple, then you have misunderstood the problem
-- Bjarne Stroustrup
Kevrob
2020-04-15 01:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Twaddle.
Cheers - Jaimie
Paul S Preson has been arguing that point seriously so I was trying to
show it was twaddle.
Oh, I killfiled him a while ago so didn't get the intended context.
Apologies.
Post by Titus G
It appears from Kevrob's and your reply that perhaps I was being too
cryptic.
Unfortunately the default position for sarcasm (and similar) in text. No
matter how insane the comment, there's always someone who'd be saying it
seriously so....
Zat so?

[/sarc]

:)

I prefer a statement like "The existence of ghodz is incredibly
improbable," or even "To answer the query [Does ghod exist?] requires
too much foundation-building of the otherwise meaningless term [ghod]
to be bothered with."

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism [..etc...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Paul S Person
2020-04-15 16:59:43 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Apr 2020 01:30:44 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Twaddle.
Cheers - Jaimie
Paul S Preson has been arguing that point seriously so I was trying to
show it was twaddle.
Oh, I killfiled him a while ago so didn't get the intended context.
Apologies.
I am sorry to hear that you have no interest in rational discourse.

Myself, I enjoy any discourse, rational or otherwise.

But to each his own.
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
It appears from Kevrob's and your reply that perhaps I was being too
cryptic.
Unfortunately the default position for sarcasm (and similar) in text. No
matter how insane the comment, there's always someone who'd be saying it
seriously so....
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-04-15 16:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Titus G
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Twaddle.
Cheers - Jaimie
Paul S Preson has been arguing that point seriously so I was trying to
show it was twaddle.
I have been doing no such thing.

I have /clearly/ distinguished between the two.

But that you say otherwise is very revealing.

Of you.
Post by Titus G
The user of asynchronous communication as practised here does NOT make
the affirmative statement that synchronous communication does not exist.
An asexual person does NOT make the affirmative statement that sex does
not exist.
A Corvid-19 asymptomatic person does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a Corvid-19 symptom does not exist.
So for a sentence beginning with "An atheist" to follow that pattern,
An atheist does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a god does not exist.
but instead I wrote Paul's definition as illogical twaddle.
I don't think I said /anything/ remotely resembling that. Particularly
since the pattern appears to have changed, although I think the
meaning is the same.

Kindly provide an actual quote (with message #) if I am editing my
memory. The statement you called "twaddle" is clearly tagged as
belonging to "Titus G" <***@nowhere.com> -- and I don't use
pseudonyms on Usenet.

No, /I/ am still considering what the shift from "an atheist is
someone who denies the existence of God" to "an atheist is someone who
does not believe God exists" may or may not imply about atheism. This
may take a few years, so don't hold your breath.

Or, at least, what it implies about those atheists who adopt that
definition. So far as I am concerned, every atheist is free to define
"atheism" as he or she chooses. Everything else is turning into
semantic goo; why not this?

But that they are anti-religious fanatics is almost certainly /not/
the answer. Of that I am reasonably sure.
Post by Titus G
It appears from Kevrob's and your reply that perhaps I was being too
cryptic.
I would say "mindlessly insulting", since you used one poster's
statement to smear another.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Alan Baker
2020-04-19 23:47:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Paul S Person
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
Is your real name Paul S People?
Post by Paul S Person
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to recognize.
The user of asynchronous communication as practised here does NOT make
the affirmative statement that synchronous communication does not exist.
An asexual person does NOT make the affirmative statement that sex does
not exist.
A Corvid-19 asymptomatic person does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a Corvid-19 symptom does not exist.
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Nope.

I can make the affirmative statement that I do not believe there are any
gods.

That doesn't make me part of a religion.
o***@gmail.com
2020-04-20 01:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by Paul S Person
Used to actually /identify/ religions when we see them.
Is your real name Paul S People?
Post by Paul S Person
All religions. Not just those (some) atheists are willing to recognize.
The user of asynchronous communication as practised here does NOT make
the affirmative statement that synchronous communication does not exist.
An asexual person does NOT make the affirmative statement that sex does
not exist.
A Corvid-19 asymptomatic person does NOT make the affirmative statement
that a Corvid-19 symptom does not exist.
An atheist is an anti-religious fanatic.
Nope.
I can make the affirmative statement that I do not believe there are any
gods.
That doesn't make me part of a religion.
o***@gmail.com
2020-04-20 01:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
I can make the affirmative statement that I do not believe there are any
gods.
That doesn't make me part of a religion.
The TRUE BELIEVERS will not (CANNOT) accept that, as, if they do so, they have no wiggle room to do their "yeah--but".

The poor, deluded, ignoramuses take that simple statement to mean you have MADE an affirmative statement that there ARE NO gods.

....illustrating their abject abandonment of (as if....heh,heh...they ever had any) logic.
Alan Baker
2020-04-20 07:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Alan Baker
I can make the affirmative statement that I do not believe there are any
gods.
That doesn't make me part of a religion.
The TRUE BELIEVERS will not (CANNOT) accept that, as, if they do so, they have no wiggle room to do their "yeah--but".
The poor, deluded, ignoramuses take that simple statement to mean you have MADE an affirmative statement that there ARE NO gods.
....illustrating their abject abandonment of (as if....heh,heh...they ever had any) logic.
Even if I had an affirmative belief that there are no gods.

Even if it were a deeply held conviction.

That still wouldn't make it my religion.

It just doesn't fit the definition in any way.
Alan Baker
2020-04-19 23:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 14:10:21 -0700, Alan Baker
I am losing track of the discussion (insert snarky comment here), mainly because I have no idea what is meant by "anti-religious fanatic". Whenever the phrase appears, it seems always to be in the context of a teen stomping out of the room, screaming that the parents are JERKS !!
https://www.catholicleague.org/anti-religious-fanaticism/
fixed it for you.
Not a definition......simply repetition of assertion.
Really? I thought it gave an example.
And came from an interesting source.
[ snip mumbling ]
....and....WTF is an "atheist religion" ?
Twenty years ago, posters on a certain news group /regularly/ used
Buddhism as a godless religion, to defeat the position that, to be a
religion, one or more deities must be involved.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
And anything that /functions/ as a religion but denies that it is one
is what I call (for short) an "atheist religion". Because they
generally are atheist; that is, their theology consists of one
God does not exist
which could, theoretically, be generalized to
no deity of any sort exists
but rarely is.
Communism /definitely/ qualifies. And I would include Secular
Humanism, having been exposed to an attempt at conversion in High
School.
They could, of course, also be called "ball-less religions", as in
"they don't have the balls to admit their true nature", but I would
regard that a needlessly insulting.
I regard your analysis as puerile freshman sociological bullshit.
You've made "religion" into a useless term.
You mean, of course,
You've made "religion" into a term whose definition can actually be
used.
There, fixed it for you.
Nope. I mean what I said.

By your definition (as has been pointed out quite correctly) governments
are religions...

...and they're just not.
Paul S Person
2020-04-20 15:58:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 16:45:02 -0700, Alan Baker
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 14:10:21 -0700, Alan Baker
I am losing track of the discussion (insert snarky comment here), mainly because I have no idea what is meant by "anti-religious fanatic". Whenever the phrase appears, it seems always to be in the context of a teen stomping out of the room, screaming that the parents are JERKS !!
https://www.catholicleague.org/anti-religious-fanaticism/
fixed it for you.
Not a definition......simply repetition of assertion.
Really? I thought it gave an example.
And came from an interesting source.
[ snip mumbling ]
....and....WTF is an "atheist religion" ?
Twenty years ago, posters on a certain news group /regularly/ used
Buddhism as a godless religion, to defeat the position that, to be a
religion, one or more deities must be involved.
But I have a simpler definition: Any religion that denies it's own
nature.
That is, any religion that claims not to be one.
Prominent examples include Communism and Secular Humanism.
Of course, it depends on how "religion" is defined. My first
collegiate foray haveing resulted in a BA in Sociology, I naturally
a /religion/ is anything that provides ceremonies and comforts for the
a) recognizes births
b) recognizes adulthood
c) celebrates weddings
d) provides funerals and/or help with mourning
is, functionally, a religion.
And anything that /functions/ as a religion but denies that it is one
is what I call (for short) an "atheist religion". Because they
generally are atheist; that is, their theology consists of one
God does not exist
which could, theoretically, be generalized to
no deity of any sort exists
but rarely is.
Communism /definitely/ qualifies. And I would include Secular
Humanism, having been exposed to an attempt at conversion in High
School.
They could, of course, also be called "ball-less religions", as in
"they don't have the balls to admit their true nature", but I would
regard that a needlessly insulting.
I regard your analysis as puerile freshman sociological bullshit.
You've made "religion" into a useless term.
You mean, of course,
You've made "religion" into a term whose definition can actually be
used.
There, fixed it for you.
Nope. I mean what I said.
By your definition (as has been pointed out quite correctly) governments
are religions...
...and they're just not.
If you say so. History /does/ repeat itself if it is ignored, you
know.

Donald Trump, when he was insisting football players show respect for
the National Anthem, might disagree with you.

Which, of course, is actually a point in your favor.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-04-12 17:12:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 09:21:07 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Go ahead and quote the entire paragraph where that appears.
"What an amazing colleciton of anti-religious propaganda.”
Which says nothing about its /facticity/.
What, you think propaganda can't use facts?
"the facts are /not worth mentioning/ because they are /not relevant/ to
anything”
he dismissed my facts as being anti-religious propaganda not worth
mentioning.
No, I dismiss them as irrelevant -- and I /also/ clearly refer to them
as "the facts", showing that I did /not/ dispute their facticity.
Without facts upon which to base an argument, there cannot be a discussion,
but merely the sterile airing of opinion. One of us has facts. The other has
opinion, Facts trump opinion, whether he likes it or not.
This is true, but the only /relevant/ fact is that you posted
anti-religious propaganda. That the content was factual does /not/
change it's nature.
You aren't being called on your facticity. You are being called on
your /bad intent/.
And you have been asked at least twice to provide an alternate
interpretation of your post.
Lawyer to witness:

"Mr. Smith, did you cut open Mr. Jones's chest and cut out his heart"

Witness:

"But"

Lawyer:

"Yes or no, Mr. Smith?"

Witness:

"But but"

Lawyer to judge:

"Your honor, would you be kind enough to instruct the witness to
answer the question?"

Judge:

"Answer the question".

Witness:

"Yes".

Lawyer:

"No further questions"

Now, without a defense you would never learn that "Mr Smith" was in
fact a thoracic surgeon performing a heart transplant.

That's the problem with arguments that use "facts". They have to use
_all_ the relevant facts or they can be very misleading.
David Goldfarb
2020-04-14 05:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Now, without a defense you would never learn that "Mr Smith" was in
fact a thoracic surgeon performing a heart transplant.
That's the problem with arguments that use "facts". They have to use
_all_ the relevant facts or they can be very misleading.
There is in fact a legal term for this: "Casting true facts in
a false light."
--
David Goldfarb |
***@gmail.com | What if there were no hypothetical situations?
***@ocf.berkeley.edu |
Chrysi Cat
2020-04-12 17:20:34 UTC
Permalink
On 4/11/2020 2:55 PM, Titus G wrote:

<snip>
Neither of which involve anything supernatural.
If Communism is a religion then so is Capitalism.
The easiest way to define the word secular is not religious.
You are saying Not Religious Humanism is a Religion.
Ooh look, there's Paul riding his cat into the library to buy cutlery to
water his carpet.
You're right on most of this.

You're WAAAAY off on the Marxism--it very /much/ embraces the
supernatural while claiming not to do so, and indeed to reject it.

Marxists just call this the Materialist Dialectic and claim that there
can only ever be ONE synthesis for any particular thesis and antithesis.
For example, because Hitlerism beat Strasserism when the two could no
longer co-exist in the 1930s' Nazi party, a
Trumpism-that's-increasingly-becoming-Hitlerist will defeat the rising
Strasserism that's been bubbling up in BOTH parties since just before
the crisis of the 20s [and whose danger signal was the Left
enthusiatically celebrating Bernie's endorsement by Joe Rogan--while the
liberals were instead complaining that Joe would have no problems
outlawing transition and requiring women-born-female to stay barefoot
and pregnant].

And of course, they're particularly happy for this, because a Hitler
analogue will always eventually fall to be replaced by a
Marxist-Leninist state.

The truest believers in this are between the ages of 16 and 31, and they
actually do see it as inevitable because it's the turn that history took
once.

Explain to me any way that it's not magical thinking, please?
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
William Hyde
2020-04-12 19:11:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:35:35 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
<snip>
I can respect other people's beliefs and definitions.
I can put up with (not necessarily respect) beliefs.
But NEVER wandering definitions.
If folks want to know what a JW is.....ask a JW.
If they want to know what an atheist is....ask an atheist.
....not some rebellious teen who hates his baptist parents....but someone who has made a thoughtful study of it.
(Ken Ham's definition doesn't matter)
It is pretty hard to treat other's beliefs like your own.
" I believe in the Truth.
You follow a religion.
He is trapped in a cult."
I don't believe a deity exists. I do not believe a deity does not
exist. The matter of whether a deity exists is a matter of crashing
indifference to me. I simply don't _care_. I do not hold that people
who believe in a deity are deluded idiots. I do not hold that people
who do not believe in a deity are superior beings. So what does that
make me?
An agnostic.

That would have been a reasonable summary of my position 30 years ago.

But a few years ago I realized that it was not entirely honest of me (not that the position was dishonest, but that I no longer held it). In fact I had come to believe that no gods exist, while I acknowledge that this is something I cannot prove, and in fact cannot be proven.

As a practical matter I felt I could not retain the agnostic "not proven" stance when (to me) reason said that the existence of gods was quite unlikely. I was agnostic only on a technicality.

So when the issue comes up I refer to myself as an atheist. But most of the people I meet from day to day have no idea of my religious views, as it just does not arise in normal conversation.

Only a Shia friend is slightly perturbed. He feels I should at least be a Christian, preferably a Protestant. But he makes no big deal of it.


William Hyde
Loading...