| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex W.
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
 |
|
"Diana" <dianaiad@notachance.com> wrote in message
news:ar9fa4577aikhvvml32n66bcsll7t9kkl2@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:06:16 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:11:36 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
snip to
Well, I have been known to mention--here on this
forum, AMOF--that the
best thing that can happen to the USA is a hopelessly
deadlocked
congress...
Only if you want to see the United States quickly turn
into a failed state.
I think that we would manage just fine. In fact, I think
we should put
the entire congress into a medical coma and bring them
out in time for
election campaigns--for the entertainment--and let us
just be free to
do what we need to do.
If you'd like to see what happens to a country with no
government (or
powerless government), move to Afghanistan.
....or Belgium.
The problem with a truly powerful government is that those
who are in
position to excercise that power don't know when to
refrain from using
it.
|
I would venture that this is a general problem with the
political class. After all, we are not really set up to
measure performance in negatives. We do not think of fires
that did not happen but measure the performance of the fire
department by the number of fires they fought, and how well
they did. So what are politicians to do? They are forced
to do something, anything at all, in order to justify their
existence and re-election. It's not really going to wash
with the electorate to turn up and say "I avoided passing 14
laws, and I made sure not to increase government activity
levels in any area I was involved in". Masterful Inactivity
is admirable only in a Zen master. Mere MPs and
congress-critters have to demonstrate how hard they work for
their tax dollar. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Smiler
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
"Diana" <dianaiad@notachance.com> wrote in message
news:cuaga4dpro53m08trv1bebubahcd8salnt@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:23:18 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:03:19 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:27:53 -0700, DanielSan
snip to
That's only true if the atheist involved isn't aware that there IS a
concept called 'god.'
Oh, don't try that oft-debunked avenue of attack. It doesn't work.
Why is it 'debunked?' Who debunked it...and why should I pay
attention?
People in alt.atheism. You should pay attention to it because this
method is fallacious.
Let's see; people in alt.atheism...atheists, I imagine...object to
having their opinions about deity placed on a spectrum of opinions
about deity?
How in the name of all that's wonderful can you argue that any opinion
about the existence of deity can be excluded from the spectrum of
beliefs about deity?
Please note; I did NOT write 'belief IN deity." I wrote "belief ABOUT
deity."
Atheists who know that they are do have an opinion/belief about deity.
They don't believe in one.
Isn't that what everybody claims?
It seems to me that if there is a spectrum of belief about deity, then
someone who knows he is atheist would have to be on it;
At the zero point. Without belief.
The zero point is on the spectrum...which has to begin somewhere.
it would be
essential that he would be on it; he begins it (or ends it, depending
on which direction you are looking)
How could anyone who knew that others believe in a deity NOT be on
that spectrum of opinion--even at so far on the end of disbelief as to
almost (but only almost) fall off?
Look at it this way (use a monospace font):
Spectrum of belief
Antitheism Atheism Theism
-----------------------------0-----------------------
Belief No Belief Belief
Thank you. That makes sense, and pretty much illustrates my thoughts.
How doesn't this illustrate my position, that atheism--no belief--is
on the spectrum of thought?
If he is aware that there is one, and has enough
opinion about the concept to name his position (that is, 'a' theism,
or "I don't believe in one") then he has put himself on the spectrum
of belief about deity--the far end, the 'null' end, whereas I suppose
a fanatic and determined believer in deity would be on the other end.
No. You're trying to redefine "lack of belief about a deity" to mean
"belief in lack of a deity". It doesn't work that way, Diana.
No, I"m not. There is a huge difference. But both positions are on
that spectrum.
If I'm not driving a car, am I driving a not-car?
If you aren't driving a car, and know that you are not driving a car,
aren't you, at the moment you understand that you are not driving that
car, thinking about the concept 'car?--even if that thought is to
merely dismiss the idea?
Yes. But I'm not driving a car. I am not believing in a deity.
but you know what it is you don't believe in. That makes the
difference, it seems to me.
Now--an infant who has never been introduced to the concept of deity;
HE would be the true atheist outside the spectrum of opinions about
it. However, as soon as someone comes into contact with the idea, and
has formed an opinion about it, he is right there on that spread of
opinion about deity, isn't he?
Webster says it is the belief in a god or gods, as opposed to
atheism.
Therefore only atheists can be anti-theist. Susan is right, in
that
there are more negatively loaded terms that apply to theists who
are
simply anti-every OTHER religion,(like 'bigot') but
'anti-theist'
isn't one of them.
So, to rewrite your paragraph correctly, it would go thusly:
"An antitheist is [not]simply a bigot who is against a certain
religion or group of religions. If you're against Islam (which
is a
form of theism), then you're an [anti-Muslim]. If you're
against
Christianity, then you're an [anti-Christian]. If you're
against
Islam and Christianity, then you're an [anti-Muslim and
anti-Christian]. If you're against ALL theistic religions, then
you're an antitheist."
That paragraph is true, but so is mine.
If you believe in your god, but you are against belief in another
god,
what does that make you?
That makes me, if I am actively out to destroy the belief in that
other deity, an anti-whatever they call themselves specifically.
However, since I do believe in a God, and am therefor a theist
myself,
I can't be anti-theist.
It's not possible.
Actually, it is.
Not according to any dictionary of English, and since defining words
for the sake of communication between people seems to be the job of
the dictionary, I think it wins.
Actually, no. You're not understanding what the dictionary says.
Actually, yes. I do understand what it says. You have changed the
definition in a way that allows you to attack theism and theists.
I am NOT attacking theism and theists. I'm not an antitheist.
Actually, yeah. You are, in that you are accusing theists of wrong
doing because you have redefined the word.
No. I'm accusing YOU of wrongdoing.
Why, because I accept the dictionary definition of an English term?
I don't think you are an
anti-theist in the same way that, say...Pol Pot was, but....
You,
therefore, are anti-theist in the dictionary definition, and in my own
slightly narrower definition.
Can you point to where I have attacked theism anywhere in this?
When you accuse any theist of being an anti-theist in an attempt to
discredit them.
Can you show me where I've tried to discredit them? I didn't say
antitheism was bad.
Perhaps you don't think so. However, the tu quoque aspect of the thing
is.
Personally, I think anti-theism IS a bad thing. Anti-almost anything
is, when we are talking about religious beliefs--or beliefs about
religion (not the same thing). But then, for me, being an 'anti-'
involves something more than simply not believing in whatever it is,
or even simply being critical.
For me, being an anti- involves active opposition--and also involves
deceitful methods, character assassination, misinformation and/or
harrassment. If a critic doesn't use those methods (like picketing and
blocking access to meetings, passing out incendiary pamphlets, attack
ads and websites full of misinformation and outright lies) then he's
not an 'anti-' as far as I'm concerned.
I, however, am not. I don't have any problems with any theistic belief
anybody holds, as long as they don't use force to bend me to their
rules. I think my own beliefs are correct, and I will share them, but
if others don't end up agreeing with me about them...oh well, may they
be happy and live brightly.
If they come in HERE (ARM) and attack my beliefs, that's different.
I'll argue. (shrug) Or debate. Whatever.
Then you're not an antitheist. However, that's really irrelevant to
the
existence of antitheistic theists.
True, that is. However, the fact that you are posting from alt.atheism
(I think that's where you are, though I am posting from ARM) is an
indication that you are more anti-theist than you would like to admit.
No, I'm not antitheist. At all. I don't really give a flying fuck what
you believe.
Nice to know. I don't care what you don't believe, either. IT's been
fun to argue with you, though.
After all, if you weren't concerned about theism, and those who do
worship a deity, you wouldn't identify yourself with a group of people
whose only point in common is that you don't believe in a god. You'd
be in a group that had other things to talk about--and in which 'god'
never comes up.
Yeah, that argument's come up before, too. And debunked by those in
alt.atheism.
Oh? Well, I'm not in alt.atheism. Would you care to share the thought
process?
No, we wouldn't be an identifiable group if those in another group
weren't trying to force their will onto everyone.
Ok, so you are in an identifiable group. And you are in there
because...
Think of it this way:
If you believe in Santa Claus, great. There wouldn't be a need for
asantaists.
If you believe in Santa Claus and tell others they're idiots, try to
pass laws about it, and refuse to allow others the freedoms that you
have because of your belief in Santa Claus, then I'll join
alt.asantaists pretty darn quick.
You have, you realized, just made my point for me. You are identifying
with a group of people who share something in common. This isn't about
WHY you are in that group. You are in the group.
I belong to a few of those sorts of groups: spinning and weaving
groups, for instance, or groups devoted to the topic of Chaucer or the
proper teaching of Hawthorne--in which the subject of God never makes
an appearance. I suppose that they truly ARE atheist groups.
No. Those are SECULAR newsgroups.
Yes. The topic of God doesn't appear in them. Atheist...'without
deity.' As in...no opinions stated about whether God exists, or who
He is. Or She is. Or They are.
purest atheism.
|
You're in those groups.
Are you an atheist?
No?
So how can they be 'atheist' groups?
| Quote: |
You can't have this both ways, Daniel.
|
It's you who wants it both ways.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: Re: MORMON PERSECUTION BS |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:37:20 -0700, r@somis.org (R. L. Measures)
wrote:
| Quote: | In article <0c7ga49ia2o8v1a8h1ue3j2l743ktk2id9@4ax.com>, Diana
dianaiad@notachance.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:04:03 -0700, r@somis.org (R. L. Measures)
wrote:
snip to here
Nobody with a loaded pistol can be murdered in cold blood.
That's an assinine thing to say, Rich.
But of course Diana. "Everything may be sacrificed."
Well then, one may safely discard everything you say from here on out
as verbal doodling, can't one?
The quote applies to defenders of Joseph Smith, Jr's. eputation.
"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is
most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood,
testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission
of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the
integrity of those essential facts.
Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to
the reputation of Joseph, then it is necessary to try to limit its
influence and that of its authors."
~~ Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith:
Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii.
The 'cold blood' is about the
deliberate intent of the murderer, not whether the intended victim can
defend him or herself.
I disagree. In cold blood means no defense.
Example, Judges 31. Moses' army slaughters every female Midianite POW
that does not possess her maidenhead -- whereupon those who do have one
are taken home with them for unstated purposes that are not all that
difficult to make an educated guess at.
Example, Mountain Meadows Utah, 9-11-1857, religious people butcher
unarmed women and children. On the bright side of life, the butchers
proudly call themselves "Saints".
Non sequitur, sir. One incident has nothing to do with another one,
and neither mentions the legal term 'in cold blood.'
In cold blood is not a legal term.
Of course, now that I think of it, the members of the mob that killed
Joseph and Hyrum...and the members of the group that murdered the
folks at Haun's Mill...and all the neighbors who did their level best
to kill off or drive out the Mormons in Illinois and Missourri called
themselves Christians---and not a few were Baptist ministers.
At the time, Baptist ministers were preaching that God intended for
niggers to be slaves for good white folks.
"Concecrating" - i. e., stealing - food and valuables in the wee hours
from neighboring farms at the direction of "prophet" Smith did not
friendly neighbors make.
|
Except of course that did not happen. Unless you believe the likes of
the people who spoke of tunnels under the Atlantic for the
transportation of good English virgins to Brigham Young's harem...
| Quote: | But I suppose you think that the Mormons deserved all of that because
of MMM?
The abomination at Mountain Meadows came a decade later.
|
My point, precisely.
Now the question is, would the MMM have happened had all the above NOT
happened?
Probably not. Not that this excuses the Mormons who did it, but you
should think about it a bit.
| Quote: | First Degree criminal homicide has three elements: 1 it must be
premeditated (given that the whole idea of the mob coming after
Joseph, Hyrum and the rest was to kill him, I'd say that this
qualified),
Almost. The fact that the brothers were armed with pistols changed that.
No.
the thinking has been done
|
Someone obviously did yours for you, Rich.
| Quote: |
The fact that Joseph had a gun means nothing to that; after all,
the mob didn't think they did. They thought they were using two
hundred armed men to kill unarmed prisoners.
And they got a little surprise. Good show Joseph.
2. It must be deliberate (or 'cool'), and 3. malicious.
Well, you can't argue that the mob wasn't full of a LOT of malice.
Good point. The Freemasons were no doubt plenty pissed that the Smith
brothers broke their sacred oath.
Considering that the majority of men in that mob were NOT Masons, your
point does not hold even if Joseph and Hyrum HAD broken any oath.
I asked a Freemason friend about the incident. He told me that the
Smith brothers broke their oath, so they got their due.
|
Charming.
| Quote: | So yeah. 'In cold blood" covers it.
Only in the mind of TBMs who will do anything to defend Joseph's
reputation. .
Rich, what are you, fourteen?
A friend by the name of Viviana told me that I had the mind of a 12-yr
old but I think she is exaggerating. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:16:29 -0700, DanielSan
<danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Diana wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:28:26 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Alex W. wrote:
"DanielSan" <danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:-tmdnQZnaamoNDrVnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:06:16 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:11:36 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
snip to
Well, I have been known to mention--here on this forum, AMOF--that
the
best thing that can happen to the USA is a hopelessly deadlocked
congress...
Only if you want to see the United States quickly turn into a failed
state.
I think that we would manage just fine. In fact, I think we should put
the entire congress into a medical coma and bring them out in time for
election campaigns--for the entertainment--and let us just be free to
do what we need to do.
If you'd like to see what happens to a country with no government (or
powerless government), move to Afghanistan.
I think...we'd be more like Belgium.
Err, you might want to tell Yves Leterme that he's delusional. He thinks
he's the prime minister of Belgium.
A stopgap Prime Minister from the third (German) minority with no popular
mandate, no viable cabinet, no majority in parliament. He does get a nice
staff car, though ....
But, evidently, there is a government.
Ah...but it is a powerless one. ;-)
The problem with a truly powerful
government is that the people in charge want to excercise that power.
Perhaps. But in this form of government, the people in charge are,
believe it or not: The people.
That's the theory.
Now for the reality.
Half of The People don't bother to participate anymore.
And why do you think that is? Could it be over two decades of
"Government is evil"?
Two decades? Dang, man, it's been longer than that. Of course, the
people saying it change as the party in charge does...
Could be decades of "public education is evil"?
Well....
Hell, we got people that cannot even find the United States on an
unlabeled map!
Unfortunately---and equally unfortunately, I know who to blame for
that one.
Most of the other
half have no idea of the issues in any given election and vote on the best
hair-do on the tallest guy with the best attack ads ... when they are not
busy letting themselves be bribed by promises of government largesse. That
is who you think is in charge?
Yes. And that's a problem. Conservative and libertarian policy is
creating a nation of idiots.
Honey, it ain't the CONSERVATIVES that screwed up the school system.
Sorry.
Sorry, sweetykins, but they did.
|
Opinions vary, but given the history....nope. Liberals did it.
| Quote: |
Which, in turn, creates a government that
doesn't work. Which, in turn, fulfills the prophecy that they have that
"government doesn't work". |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:17:23 -0700, DanielSan
<danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Diana wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:25:43 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:29:40 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:06:16 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:11:36 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
snip to
Well, I have been known to mention--here on this forum, AMOF--that the
best thing that can happen to the USA is a hopelessly deadlocked
congress...
Only if you want to see the United States quickly turn into a failed state.
I think that we would manage just fine. In fact, I think we should put
the entire congress into a medical coma and bring them out in time for
election campaigns--for the entertainment--and let us just be free to
do what we need to do.
If you'd like to see what happens to a country with no government (or
powerless government), move to Afghanistan.
I think...we'd be more like Belgium.
Err, you might want to tell Yves Leterme that he's delusional. He
thinks he's the prime minister of Belgium.
Not by choice. The poor man has been trying to resign all year
because he can't seem to get a government going.
I'm going to need you to back that up.
Lessee...He offered to resign this last July, specifically because he
couldn't get the parties in parliament together in a coalition
government by the deadline. Evidently it's not the first time he tried
to do this--resign, that is. I don't blame him. From what I have been
reading over the last day or so, dealing with that bunch is like
herding grasshoppers.
So, he can't just stop working?
|
I believe--though I may be incorrect about this..that he just might
have too much honor and sense of duty. Unusual in a politician, but
hey; we had to find someone like that somewhere. He's going to stay
put until the King lets him go home, I guess.
| Quote: |
The problem with a truly powerful
government is that the people in charge want to excercise that power.
Perhaps. But in this form of government, the people in charge are,
believe it or not: The people.
Oh, now, Daniel---you don't really believe that, do you?
I actually do.
yeah, well, the next time you vote for a congressional representative
who breaks a campaign promise, think about that.
Of course. The next time they do that, I'll vote them out. As always.
|
Good luck with that. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:49:35 +0100, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Diana" <dianaiad@notachance.com> wrote in message
news:ar9fa4577aikhvvml32n66bcsll7t9kkl2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:06:16 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:11:36 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
snip to
Well, I have been known to mention--here on this
forum, AMOF--that the
best thing that can happen to the USA is a hopelessly
deadlocked
congress...
Only if you want to see the United States quickly turn
into a failed state.
I think that we would manage just fine. In fact, I think
we should put
the entire congress into a medical coma and bring them
out in time for
election campaigns--for the entertainment--and let us
just be free to
do what we need to do.
If you'd like to see what happens to a country with no
government (or
powerless government), move to Afghanistan.
....or Belgium.
The problem with a truly powerful government is that those
who are in
position to excercise that power don't know when to
refrain from using
it.
I would venture that this is a general problem with the
political class. After all, we are not really set up to
measure performance in negatives. We do not think of fires
that did not happen but measure the performance of the fire
department by the number of fires they fought, and how well
they did. So what are politicians to do? They are forced
to do something, anything at all, in order to justify their
existence and re-election. It's not really going to wash
with the electorate to turn up and say "I avoided passing 14
laws, and I made sure not to increase government activity
levels in any area I was involved in". Masterful Inactivity
is admirable only in a Zen master. Mere MPs and
congress-critters have to demonstrate how hard they work for
their tax dollar.
|
I dunno, I'd love to see a politician come and show me where he or she
prevented a bunch of idiotic bills from being passed. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin Z
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: Re: Did You Know; Shift Happens - Globalization; Information |
|
|
John Manning wrote:
| Quote: | Kevin Z wrote:
John Manning wrote:
"john p" wrote:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ljbI-363A2Q
Too bad so many people are still so stupid that they support and vote
for phony fucks like George W Bush and his ilk
And Obama will be better? How?
I'm sorry, but your assessment of W. is mild compared to what Obama
will do to this country.
But you're a fringe right wing propagandized ass-kisser, Kevin. You're
completely mentally incapable of even seeing the reality about what Bush
has actually done, much less evaluating that reality.
Most Americans and most of the world can see the devastation the
arrogant, incompetent little prick has left in Iraq and what he's done
to the economy and the Constitution in the USA and what he's done to
shred our prestige abroad.
|
Since your not in America, you can't possibly know how america feels.
Only what the liberal media wants you to know.
Most of America, not the vocal minority, don't feel that way. The bad
reputation is a creation of the liberal media and people like you who
repeat lies until they become the truth. He has not ruined the economy,
he has not shredded the constitution and our prestige abroad is bad
only in places who know their next on the list.
| Quote: | Why do you think that even Republicans are running away from Bush and
his failed policies?
|
Spinless weasels who are convinced aligning themselves with democrats is
the only way to get things done. When Conservatives acted like
conservatives than the Republicans cleaned up. Much of the
dissatisfaction is Rebublicans being too liberal. Not what you seem to
think at all. Failed policies? Policies are working, its just that
pinheads in the news don't want us to know about it.
| Quote: |
It's idiots like you who believe your leaders so much that you'd EASILY
end up like the singers in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdM8PDu6VMg
|
I don't blindly follow my leaders, but I can see truth and I have been
around the block enough times to have realized where the evil comes
from. It's not W. I can choose whom I follow, and your insulting crap
about "the thinking is done for you" could just as easily apply to
yourself and the liberal hype you are so invested in that you can't see
the light of truth if it glared right in your face.
| Quote: |
You'd be just as convinced as they were that what your cheering on and
standing up for is right and good and God is on your side. You really
ARE a painfully stooopid dupe, Mr Z.
|
Dupe? Painfully stupid? Well, maybe so, but stupid or not, I can
think for myself, and I can tell when I am being lied too. I can tell
when the bullshit is deep. And your in it deep. Not buying into your
crap doesn't make me stupid.
God helps those who help themselves. just believing God is on your side
is naive. You have to put faith in him and do the right thing.
To you evil is good and good is evil.
KevinZ
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:14 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:28:54 -0700, DanielSan
<danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Diana wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:39:35 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:23:18 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:03:19 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:27:53 -0700, DanielSan
snip to
That's only true if the atheist involved isn't aware that there IS a
concept called 'god.'
Oh, don't try that oft-debunked avenue of attack. It doesn't work.
Why is it 'debunked?' Who debunked it...and why should I pay
attention?
People in alt.atheism. You should pay attention to it because this
method is fallacious.
Let's see; people in alt.atheism...atheists, I imagine...object to
having their opinions about deity placed on a spectrum of opinions
about deity?
How in the name of all that's wonderful can you argue that any opinion
about the existence of deity can be excluded from the spectrum of
beliefs about deity?
Please note; I did NOT write 'belief IN deity." I wrote "belief ABOUT
deity."
So, what is your belief about Dumbledore or Gandalf the Grey?
My belief about them is that they are interesting characters, but that
Rowling got a little too obvious in the last book with her Christ
imagery.
See? I have an opinion about them.
But, do you have a "belief" about them?
|
Yeah. I believe that they are interesting characters, but that Rowling
got a little too obvious in the last book with her Christ imagery.
I have NEVER been talking about 'belief in.' "Opinions about' do not
equal 'belief in,' necessarily.
| Quote: | Atheists who know that they are do have an opinion/belief about deity.
They don't believe in one.
Opinion != Belief
No, opinion = opinion. If one's opinion is that God is real, then
that's on one end. If one's opinion is that God is not real, that's on
the other. If you don't have an opinion one way or the other (though I
have a small problem figuring out how one can actually do that...)
then simply understanding that there is a concept called 'deity' that
you don't believe in is also an opinion.
"I believe in God."
"I don't know enough about God to believe or disbelieve"
"I don't believe in God"
"I believe that there is no God"
The above statements of opinions are different, but they are all
statements of opinion.
But they're not equal in strength of validity.
|
So? What does that have to do with it? For one thing, 'validity' is in
the eye of the beholder. the one who says "I believe in God" doesn't
think that the other opinions are valid...and the same holds true of
the one who says "I believe that there is no God." Each person
obviously believes his or her own opinion is the 'valid' one.
....or they would hold a different opinion and then they would think
THAT one was the valid one.
As to strength...again, so?
| Quote: | Isn't that what everybody claims?
It seems to me that if there is a spectrum of belief about deity, then
someone who knows he is atheist would have to be on it;
At the zero point. Without belief.
The zero point is on the spectrum...which has to begin somewhere.
it would be
essential that he would be on it; he begins it (or ends it, depending
on which direction you are looking)
How could anyone who knew that others believe in a deity NOT be on
that spectrum of opinion--even at so far on the end of disbelief as to
almost (but only almost) fall off?
Look at it this way (use a monospace font):
Spectrum of belief
Antitheism Atheism Theism
-----------------------------0-----------------------
Belief No Belief Belief
Thank you. That makes sense, and pretty much illustrates my thoughts.
How doesn't this illustrate my position, that atheism--no belief--is
on the spectrum of thought?
It does. We do not have belief. Just as we've been trying to tell you.
You don't have to convince me that you don't have belief. I understand
that. However, you understand what it is that you don't believe--and
that very unbelief is a statement of opinion regarding deity that
belongs on the spectrum of opinions regarding deity.
...and if you have enough of an opinion regarding the existence of
deity to identify yourself as a non-believer and join a group based
soley on that non-belief, that's a fairly strong opinion.
I'm sorry, but "duh!"
|
Evidently you did need to have it spelled out, Daniel. You seem to
have been disagreeing with me on this issue.
| Quote: | If he is aware that there is one, and has enough
opinion about the concept to name his position (that is, 'a' theism,
or "I don't believe in one") then he has put himself on the spectrum
of belief about deity--the far end, the 'null' end, whereas I suppose
a fanatic and determined believer in deity would be on the other end.
No. You're trying to redefine "lack of belief about a deity" to mean
"belief in lack of a deity". It doesn't work that way, Diana.
No, I"m not. There is a huge difference. But both positions are on
that spectrum.
If I'm not driving a car, am I driving a not-car?
If you aren't driving a car, and know that you are not driving a car,
aren't you, at the moment you understand that you are not driving that
car, thinking about the concept 'car?--even if that thought is to
merely dismiss the idea?
Yes. But I'm not driving a car. I am not believing in a deity.
but you know what it is you don't believe in. That makes the
difference, it seems to me.
Now--an infant who has never been introduced to the concept of deity;
HE would be the true atheist outside the spectrum of opinions about
it. However, as soon as someone comes into contact with the idea, and
has formed an opinion about it, he is right there on that spread of
opinion about deity, isn't he?
Yes.
Ok, I think we are finally understanding one another. Maybe.
Webster says it is the belief in a god or gods, as opposed to atheism.
Therefore only atheists can be anti-theist. Susan is right, in that
there are more negatively loaded terms that apply to theists who are
simply anti-every OTHER religion,(like 'bigot') but 'anti-theist'
isn't one of them.
So, to rewrite your paragraph correctly, it would go thusly:
"An antitheist is [not]simply a bigot who is against a certain
religion or group of religions. If you're against Islam (which is a
form of theism), then you're an [anti-Muslim]. If you're against
Christianity, then you're an [anti-Christian]. If you're against
Islam and Christianity, then you're an [anti-Muslim and
anti-Christian]. If you're against ALL theistic religions, then
you're an antitheist."
That paragraph is true, but so is mine.
If you believe in your god, but you are against belief in another god,
what does that make you?
That makes me, if I am actively out to destroy the belief in that
other deity, an anti-whatever they call themselves specifically.
However, since I do believe in a God, and am therefor a theist myself,
I can't be anti-theist.
It's not possible.
Actually, it is.
Not according to any dictionary of English, and since defining words
for the sake of communication between people seems to be the job of
the dictionary, I think it wins.
Actually, no. You're not understanding what the dictionary says.
Actually, yes. I do understand what it says. You have changed the
definition in a way that allows you to attack theism and theists.
I am NOT attacking theism and theists. I'm not an antitheist.
Actually, yeah. You are, in that you are accusing theists of wrong
doing because you have redefined the word.
No. I'm accusing YOU of wrongdoing.
Why, because I accept the dictionary definition of an English term?
No. Because you are NOT using the dictionary definition of the term.
The dictionary definition states that anti-theism is opposition to
belief in a god or gods. If you believe in a god or gods, how can you
be opposed to the belief in a god or gods? You are opposing your own
opinions.
No. You have belief in one god but you are against belief in another.
|
Then you are anti--that other. You are not anti-theist.
Any more than, say...Lenin is anti-atheist because he had no patience
for less active atheists than he was.
| Quote: | Remember; the dictionary didn't mention which god or gods; one can
then assume that it is refering to all of 'em.
"A god" does not refer to all of them.
|
Yes. It does. But...if it doesn't, pray tell me which one it does
refer to, or does not refer to?
| Quote: | So what you are doing, when you claim that theists can be anti-theist,
is exactly what atheists get really pissed off about with other
people. The claim is that 'atheism' simply and only means 'without
belief in a deity or deities." Fine. Then "theism" simply and only
means 'belief in a deity or deities."
Yes.
Any other attribute is an add on; something not shared by all theists.
A 'brand' of theism.
Yes.
You used a car analogy earlier. OK, let's go with that. If you are
'anti-car,' you won't be driving a car. If you drive a Ford Taurus,
and get all upset at Chevy owners, then you are 'anti-Chevy,' not
'anti-car,' because guess what--a Taurus is a car.
But, if you're anti-SUV, you ARE anti-vehicle, even if you are
pro-Prius. Because, guess what--an SUV is a vehicle.
|
How can you be anti-vehicle if you drive one? That's my point. If you
are anti-vehicle, you are anti-ALL vehicles--because you have
identified yourself as being anti an entire class of things that
include all vehicles.
Anti-theists are against the entire class of theists. By definition.
Therefore, if one is a theist, one cannot be anti-theist. One can be
anti-every OTHER theist, but not anti-theist in total.
| Quote: | So if you are a Baptist who is anti-Mormon, then you are anti-Mormon,
not anti-theist, because guess what--the Baptists are theists.
Okay, we've gone far enough. You obviously have a different definition
of theism than the dictionary uses.
|
Actually, I have the SAME definition of theism that the dictionary
uses. Care to find all the dictionary definitions of 'theism' and
prove that it does NOT mean what I claim it does--and that you, above,
agreed it does?
| Quote: |
As well, the vast majority of atheists can, and do, criticize the
genocides committed against theists by Lenin and Stalin (the wholesale
confiscation of religious property and the murder of literally
millions of people because they would not give up their religious
faith and hew to the party line) are not, thereby, considered
anti-atheist, are they?
But I'll tell you what; if you insist that it is acceptable for a
theist to be anti-theist because he or she doesn't like a particular
brand of theism, you are insisting that theism itself has to bear all
the burdens of all the brands thereof.
If you wish to do that, fine. I can then do the same for the sorts of
atheists that use their lack of belief in a god to excuse their
genocide against theists--and call all those who are anti-Lenin, or
anti-Stalin, or anti-Pol Pot anti atheist...with as much logic.
I don't think you are an
anti-theist in the same way that, say...Pol Pot was, but....
You,
therefore, are anti-theist in the dictionary definition, and in my own
slightly narrower definition.
Can you point to where I have attacked theism anywhere in this?
When you accuse any theist of being an anti-theist in an attempt to
discredit them.
Can you show me where I've tried to discredit them? I didn't say
antitheism was bad.
Perhaps you don't think so. However, the tu quoque aspect of the thing
is.
Personally, I think anti-theism IS a bad thing. Anti-almost anything
is, when we are talking about religious beliefs--or beliefs about
religion (not the same thing). But then, for me, being an 'anti-'
involves something more than simply not believing in whatever it is,
or even simply being critical.
Yep. However, if it is your religious belief that homosexuals must burn
at the stake, it is GOOD to be "anti-" that, right?
Depending on what you do about it, yes.
For me, being an anti- involves active opposition--and also involves
deceitful methods, character assassination, misinformation and/or
harrassment.
Not always. Anti-nazi, for example.
Oh, ok...that is a weak point. However, one doesn't HAVE to lie about
the evils of Nazism or burning homosexuals at the stake in order to
discredit them.
What lies are being used?
|
In this, I am using a personal definition of 'anti-' I freely admit
it...because to me, 'anti-(insert belief system here)' folks are
defined by the methods they use to combat whatever belief system they
are out to destroy. Those methods include misinformation, outright
lies, harrassment and sometimes even physical and legal force.
Someone who does not use those methods to combat a belief system they
do not like is not, in my view, strictly 'anti.' "Critic" would be
more appropriate, I believe.
I don't like antis--when they are aimed at belief systems that do them
no harm, or are simply nuisances...and even if the target of one's ire
is more than simply a nuisance, if one has to lie, misrepresent or use
harrassment to discredit it, it's a bad idea. Such things always come
back to bite you.
| Quote: | If a critic doesn't use those methods (like picketing and
blocking access to meetings, passing out incendiary pamphlets, attack
ads and websites full of misinformation and outright lies) then he's
not an 'anti-' as far as I'm concerned.
I, however, am not. I don't have any problems with any theistic belief
anybody holds, as long as they don't use force to bend me to their
rules. I think my own beliefs are correct, and I will share them, but
if others don't end up agreeing with me about them...oh well, may they
be happy and live brightly.
If they come in HERE (ARM) and attack my beliefs, that's different.
I'll argue. (shrug) Or debate. Whatever.
Then you're not an antitheist. However, that's really irrelevant to the
existence of antitheistic theists.
True, that is. However, the fact that you are posting from alt.atheism
(I think that's where you are, though I am posting from ARM) is an
indication that you are more anti-theist than you would like to admit.
No, I'm not antitheist. At all. I don't really give a flying fuck what
you believe.
Nice to know. I don't care what you don't believe, either. IT's been
fun to argue with you, though.
After all, if you weren't concerned about theism, and those who do
worship a deity, you wouldn't identify yourself with a group of people
whose only point in common is that you don't believe in a god. You'd
be in a group that had other things to talk about--and in which 'god'
never comes up.
Yeah, that argument's come up before, too. And debunked by those in
alt.atheism.
Oh? Well, I'm not in alt.atheism. Would you care to share the thought
process?
See below.
No, we wouldn't be an identifiable group if those in another group
weren't trying to force their will onto everyone.
Ok, so you are in an identifiable group. And you are in there
because...
Think of it this way:
If you believe in Santa Claus, great. There wouldn't be a need for
asantaists.
If you believe in Santa Claus and tell others they're idiots, try to
pass laws about it, and refuse to allow others the freedoms that you
have because of your belief in Santa Claus, then I'll join
alt.asantaists pretty darn quick.
You have, you realized, just made my point for me. You are identifying
with a group of people who share something in common. This isn't about
WHY you are in that group. You are in the group.
Yes. We are defined by what we're not.
Yes. And you know what it is that you are not--and have a definite
opinion about that.
Opinion is not belief. Opinion is opinion.
|
I have never claimed otherwise. This is not, and has never been, about
BELIEF, per se. At least, not about belief IN deity. Beliefs ABOUT
deity? Well yes, when 'belief is synonymous with 'opinion.'
| Quote: | I belong to a few of those sorts of groups: spinning and weaving
groups, for instance, or groups devoted to the topic of Chaucer or the
proper teaching of Hawthorne--in which the subject of God never makes
an appearance. I suppose that they truly ARE atheist groups.
No. Those are SECULAR newsgroups.
Yes. The topic of God doesn't appear in them. Atheist...'without
deity.' As in...no opinions stated about whether God exists, or who
He is. Or She is. Or They are.
No, now you're redefining atheism ("lack of belief in a god or gods") as
secular ("not pertaining to religion")
No, actually...I'm pointing out that if your group is defined by
religion and theism (and it is, even though the definition is 'we're
not that...') then your opinions rightly belong on that spectrum of
opinion regarding deity.
When you first take drawing lessons, one of the things your teacher is
going to talk to you about is negative space...that portion of the
picture that is 'without' color or form,yet is as important to the
painting as a whole as the form itself is, even as it is defined by
that form. I can guarantee you that those people who are on those
secular groups that you have dismissed have all sorts of opinions
about deity, but I don't know what they are, and may never know. In
this arena, we are not defined by god or the belief in one. The people
who speak of spinning wheels have no place on the continuum of opinion
regarding God, because...that's not the subject.
With alt.atheism and those in there, however, it is. As long as it is,
They are the negative space in that whole picture of human opinion
regarding deity. They belong in the painting, and in the discussion.
purest atheism.
You can't have this both ways, Daniel.
Looks, we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree. You think
that if you're against belief in a god that is not your own, that you're
not antitheist. I disagree.
...and you disagree with me---but more importantly to your further
attempts to communicate with other speakers of English, with the
dictionary and the actual meaning of the word.
Sorry, but you're wrong. If you're against belief in Allah, you're an
antitheist, by definition, even if you believe in God.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. The problem is, though,
you are stuck with your definition, because it is the only way you can
justify your negative characterizations of theism.
You're still wrong, though.
And you're still wrong. I have never characterized theism negatively.
Hmmn. I got quite a different impression. I may have you confused with
someone else...unless it was you who called Ann Coulter an
'anti-theist' in order to disparage and discredit her?
No. I didn't call her an antitheist in order to disparage or discredit
her. I called her an antitheist because that's what she is. I attached
no value judgment to it. It simply is what it is.
Daniel, you are being just a tad disengenuous here.
No, I'm really not.
Then why did you call Ann Coulter an anti-theist? What was your
purpose? Even if you think she is, what was your purpose in saying so
in here, now?
To show that theists can be antitheist.
|
Why? Why would that be important?
| Quote: | Which you obviously do not
agree with, even though the definition you provided disagrees with you.
So, we're at an impasse.
I have my own opinions on Ann Coulter, but I haven't made them known. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Diana
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:25:44 +0100, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
<snip to this gem>
| Quote: | You're in those groups.
Are you an atheist?
No?
So how can they be 'atheist' groups?
|
Lessee...while I am posting from ARM, there are quite a few people who
are reading this from alt.atheism. I am therefore 'in' alt.atheism,
yes?
Yet it is an atheist group.;-)
<snip to end> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
\"john p\"
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: Re: Stone Age Graveyard Unearthed In Sahara |
|
|
On Aug 16, 6:48 am, Diana <diana...@notachance.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:48:47 -0700 (PDT), "\"john p\""
john.ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 15, 3:31 am, Just James <post_mas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Scientists hunting for dinosaur bones in the Sahara have stumbled on an
extraordinary discovery: a huge cemetery containing some 200 graves.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93597190
--
Just James
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the
first and only object of good government." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Nice find. Of course some of the human remains are older than what
many mormons believe the age of the world is.
But not as old as most believe the age of the world is.
|
Most? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
DanielSan
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:50 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
Diana wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:28:54 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:39:35 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:23:18 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:03:19 -0700, DanielSan
danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Diana wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:27:53 -0700, DanielSan
snip to
That's only true if the atheist involved isn't aware that there IS a
concept called 'god.'
Oh, don't try that oft-debunked avenue of attack. It doesn't work.
Why is it 'debunked?' Who debunked it...and why should I pay
attention?
People in alt.atheism. You should pay attention to it because this
method is fallacious.
Let's see; people in alt.atheism...atheists, I imagine...object to
having their opinions about deity placed on a spectrum of opinions
about deity?
How in the name of all that's wonderful can you argue that any opinion
about the existence of deity can be excluded from the spectrum of
beliefs about deity?
Please note; I did NOT write 'belief IN deity." I wrote "belief ABOUT
deity."
So, what is your belief about Dumbledore or Gandalf the Grey?
My belief about them is that they are interesting characters, but that
Rowling got a little too obvious in the last book with her Christ
imagery.
See? I have an opinion about them.
But, do you have a "belief" about them?
Yeah. I believe that they are interesting characters, but that Rowling
got a little too obvious in the last book with her Christ imagery.
I have NEVER been talking about 'belief in.' "Opinions about' do not
equal 'belief in,' necessarily.
|
Then we're not talking about theism, are we?
| Quote: |
Atheists who know that they are do have an opinion/belief about deity.
They don't believe in one.
Opinion != Belief
No, opinion = opinion. If one's opinion is that God is real, then
that's on one end. If one's opinion is that God is not real, that's on
the other. If you don't have an opinion one way or the other (though I
have a small problem figuring out how one can actually do that...)
then simply understanding that there is a concept called 'deity' that
you don't believe in is also an opinion.
"I believe in God."
"I don't know enough about God to believe or disbelieve"
"I don't believe in God"
"I believe that there is no God"
The above statements of opinions are different, but they are all
statements of opinion.
But they're not equal in strength of validity.
So? What does that have to do with it? For one thing, 'validity' is in
the eye of the beholder.
|
No. It isn't. Belief that the moon is made of rock is MUCH more valid
than the belief that the moon is made of cheese. Why? We have
evidence of the former, not the latter.
| Quote: | the one who says "I believe in God" doesn't
think that the other opinions are valid...and the same holds true of
the one who says "I believe that there is no God." Each person
obviously believes his or her own opinion is the 'valid' one.
|
Yes, but one is valid and one isn't, outside the opinions of the observer.
| Quote: |
...or they would hold a different opinion and then they would think
THAT one was the valid one.
As to strength...again, so?
|
So, a belief that pots of gold are at the end of rainbows is equally
valid as belief that rainbows are refracted light?
| Quote: |
Isn't that what everybody claims?
It seems to me that if there is a spectrum of belief about deity, then
someone who knows he is atheist would have to be on it;
At the zero point. Without belief.
The zero point is on the spectrum...which has to begin somewhere.
it would be
essential that he would be on it; he begins it (or ends it, depending
on which direction you are looking)
How could anyone who knew that others believe in a deity NOT be on
that spectrum of opinion--even at so far on the end of disbelief as to
almost (but only almost) fall off?
Look at it this way (use a monospace font):
Spectrum of belief
Antitheism Atheism Theism
-----------------------------0-----------------------
Belief No Belief Belief
Thank you. That makes sense, and pretty much illustrates my thoughts.
How doesn't this illustrate my position, that atheism--no belief--is
on the spectrum of thought?
It does. We do not have belief. Just as we've been trying to tell you.
You don't have to convince me that you don't have belief. I understand
that. However, you understand what it is that you don't believe--and
that very unbelief is a statement of opinion regarding deity that
belongs on the spectrum of opinions regarding deity.
...and if you have enough of an opinion regarding the existence of
deity to identify yourself as a non-believer and join a group based
soley on that non-belief, that's a fairly strong opinion.
I'm sorry, but "duh!"
Evidently you did need to have it spelled out, Daniel. You seem to
have been disagreeing with me on this issue.
|
No. You're trying to equate belief in a god (theism) with opinion about
a god (not theism).
| Quote: |
If he is aware that there is one, and has enough
opinion about the concept to name his position (that is, 'a' theism,
or "I don't believe in one") then he has put himself on the spectrum
of belief about deity--the far end, the 'null' end, whereas I suppose
a fanatic and determined believer in deity would be on the other end.
No. You're trying to redefine "lack of belief about a deity" to mean
"belief in lack of a deity". It doesn't work that way, Diana.
No, I"m not. There is a huge difference. But both positions are on
that spectrum.
If I'm not driving a car, am I driving a not-car?
If you aren't driving a car, and know that you are not driving a car,
aren't you, at the moment you understand that you are not driving that
car, thinking about the concept 'car?--even if that thought is to
merely dismiss the idea?
Yes. But I'm not driving a car. I am not believing in a deity.
but you know what it is you don't believe in. That makes the
difference, it seems to me.
Now--an infant who has never been introduced to the concept of deity;
HE would be the true atheist outside the spectrum of opinions about
it. However, as soon as someone comes into contact with the idea, and
has formed an opinion about it, he is right there on that spread of
opinion about deity, isn't he?
Yes.
Ok, I think we are finally understanding one another. Maybe.
Webster says it is the belief in a god or gods, as opposed to atheism.
Therefore only atheists can be anti-theist. Susan is right, in that
there are more negatively loaded terms that apply to theists who are
simply anti-every OTHER religion,(like 'bigot') but 'anti-theist'
isn't one of them.
So, to rewrite your paragraph correctly, it would go thusly:
"An antitheist is [not]simply a bigot who is against a certain
religion or group of religions. If you're against Islam (which is a
form of theism), then you're an [anti-Muslim]. If you're against
Christianity, then you're an [anti-Christian]. If you're against
Islam and Christianity, then you're an [anti-Muslim and
anti-Christian]. If you're against ALL theistic religions, then
you're an antitheist."
That paragraph is true, but so is mine.
If you believe in your god, but you are against belief in another god,
what does that make you?
That makes me, if I am actively out to destroy the belief in that
other deity, an anti-whatever they call themselves specifically.
However, since I do believe in a God, and am therefor a theist myself,
I can't be anti-theist.
It's not possible.
Actually, it is.
Not according to any dictionary of English, and since defining words
for the sake of communication between people seems to be the job of
the dictionary, I think it wins.
Actually, no. You're not understanding what the dictionary says.
Actually, yes. I do understand what it says. You have changed the
definition in a way that allows you to attack theism and theists.
I am NOT attacking theism and theists. I'm not an antitheist.
Actually, yeah. You are, in that you are accusing theists of wrong
doing because you have redefined the word.
No. I'm accusing YOU of wrongdoing.
Why, because I accept the dictionary definition of an English term?
No. Because you are NOT using the dictionary definition of the term.
The dictionary definition states that anti-theism is opposition to
belief in a god or gods. If you believe in a god or gods, how can you
be opposed to the belief in a god or gods? You are opposing your own
opinions.
No. You have belief in one god but you are against belief in another.
Then you are anti--that other. You are not anti-theist.
|
So, the other isn't theism?
| Quote: |
Any more than, say...Lenin is anti-atheist because he had no patience
for less active atheists than he was.
|
Unless Lenin was against atheists because they didn't believe, then he
is not anti-atheist. You can't compare the two.
| Quote: |
Remember; the dictionary didn't mention which god or gods; one can
then assume that it is refering to all of 'em.
"A god" does not refer to all of them.
Yes. It does. But...if it doesn't, pray tell me which one it does
refer to, or does not refer to?
So what you are doing, when you claim that theists can be anti-theist,
is exactly what atheists get really pissed off about with other
people. The claim is that 'atheism' simply and only means 'without
belief in a deity or deities." Fine. Then "theism" simply and only
means 'belief in a deity or deities."
Yes.
Any other attribute is an add on; something not shared by all theists.
A 'brand' of theism.
Yes.
You used a car analogy earlier. OK, let's go with that. If you are
'anti-car,' you won't be driving a car. If you drive a Ford Taurus,
and get all upset at Chevy owners, then you are 'anti-Chevy,' not
'anti-car,' because guess what--a Taurus is a car.
But, if you're anti-SUV, you ARE anti-vehicle, even if you are
pro-Prius. Because, guess what--an SUV is a vehicle.
How can you be anti-vehicle if you drive one? That's my point.
|
So, an SUV is not a vehicle?
| Quote: | If you
are anti-vehicle, you are anti-ALL vehicles--because you have
identified yourself as being anti an entire class of things that
include all vehicles.
|
No. Stop that.
| Quote: |
Anti-theists are against the entire class of theists. By definition.
|
No. Stop that.
| Quote: | Therefore, if one is a theist, one cannot be anti-theist. One can be
anti-every OTHER theist, but not anti-theist in total.
|
No. Stop that. If you're against belief in a god, you're antitheist.
By definition. Allah is a god. If you're against belief in Allah,
you're an antitheist.
I'm going to stop the conversation here. You are never going to agree
with me or the dictionary. You have your own special definition of
antitheism. That's fine, but I'm never going to agree with it.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it? *
**************************************************** |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
thomas p.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
"Raleigh" <graleigh345@cs.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:965428fe-7027-493a-ad53-c8d54bfeab49@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 8:02 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Raleigh" <graleigh...@cs.com> skrev i en
meddelelsenews:b9257213-3893-4fe0-aa66-051a4160d22b@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 3:38 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
|
snip
| Quote: | The bigot admits his claims are laughable.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Oh, you are convinced that water runs uphill? Belief that
homosexuality is normal is a similar belief. Insistence on the use of
formal logic, and various specious arguments demonstrates a talent for
intellecuttual gymanastics, but it doesn't change the reality of the
world.
Yet you are the one who demands "proof" that your bare assertions are
wrong.
Raleigh
_________________________________________-
Sorry, but you are the one making assertions. You then use your assertions
as evidence for more assertions. You have yet to offer one piece of
objective evidence for any of it, and of course you cannot. One more time:
Making an assertion and then declaring it to be indisputable does not equal
evidence. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
thomas p.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: Re: 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in t |
|
|
"Raleigh" <graleigh345@cs.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4f68f9b0-f773-404c-a16b-0aaeb51e1a3d@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 17, 7:58 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Raleigh" <graleigh...@cs.com> skrev i en
meddelelsenews:d150e6ad-40c5-473c-9591-290ca28dae38@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 15, 3:19 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:> "Raleigh"
graleigh...@cs.com> skrev i en
meddelelsenews:529e6446-8037-4718-bb58-d33ac6b647e1@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 14, 10:50 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
Comparing homosexuality to African descent is like comparing rocks
with apples. Comparing homosexuality with pedophilia is comparing
granite with marble.
Raleigh
____________________________________
thomas
Pedophiles who act on their desires harm others. The difference is
glaringly obvious. The very fact that you are not able or refuse to see
that difference is more than sufficient evidence that you are a bigot-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
See, your "my-mind-is-made-up-already-so-don't-bother-me" status is
showing again. A pedophile might ask you what your definition of
"harm" is, and why you apply it to his or her activities. Just before
he or she calls you a bigot.
Raleigh
_________________________-
A pedophile might say many things.
|
Just as you do.
It does not change the fact that acts of
| Quote: | pedophilia produces victims, and that homosexuality does not.
|
Sorry, but in a world in which the radical left has announced that all
morality is relative, the idea that pedophilia produces victims is not
a "fact," not according to the logic that you use. Don Johnson, for
instance is very proud that his babysitter had sex with him when he
was 13, and considers himself a lucky man.
__________________________________________
thomas
None of the above changes reality. Get rid of your straw and try to make a
real argument. Do you or do you not agree that a pedophile victimizes a
child when he acts out his sexual desires?
_______________________________________--
thomas
Thank you
| Quote: | thought for revealing your total lack of morality.
____________________________________- |
raleigh
Actually, my hypothetical reveals your own lack of morality, in
proclaiming that pedophilia produces victims, but homosexuality does
not. The Elmer Wayne Henley case provides more than adequate proof
that homosexuality does indeed produce victims.
____________________________________________________
thomas
You are welcome to provide the data that shows that homosexuality creates
victims - not just assert it, but you won't; because you can't.
_______________________________________-
raleigh
If you want to promote homosexuality, go ahead. Just don't claim that
you do it our of concern for morality.
__________________________
thomas
It is also immoral to misrepresent another person's position. I do not
promote homosexuality. I have no idea how someone would do that or why
anyone would want to do that. I advocate equal civil rights for all. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
thomas p.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:44 am Post s | |
