Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Values or Secular Values?

[Jim]

Not only Franklin, but at least several others. There has been a myth created by people who romantically think of the Constitutional Conventioneers as being all Christians. It was not that way. I know you are arguing something else, but its something I like to say when it seems relevant.



There are quite a few Godly people who would like to advance their religion in this country, and control the behavior of other citizens, through the force of law. They only get out of the Bible the parts that they want to. They want a so-called 'Christian nation.' They are in violation of Christ's teachings and the Constitution, in my opinion.

What I have never understood is WHY any religious conservative would want government to be involved in the business of religion.

 

[tryreading]

What I have never understood is WHY any religious conservative would want government to be involved in the business of religion.

Well, what some want is more religion in government. But they don't understand that that is exactly the same thing as having more government in religion. If there is official prayer in school, for example, the school is telling a captive audience with no power to control the situation or leave it that they have to pray, and they have to pray this particular way. That is wrong on many levels, but most importantly its UnConstitutional.

The thing about school prayer is it exists now, and doesn't have to be government forced. A schoolkid can pray in school, anytime he wants, as long as he doesn't disrupt classes. Anyone who says we took prayer out of school (which I often hear on talk radio) is lying. We only took government prayer out of school.

 

[Topsez]

Just a note to bring to the attention of releigious v. alternatives as it flowed through history; yesterday I watched a special on the History Channel on Halloween... I'm sure they will repeat it and it discusses issues directly related to this thread... check your local listings.

 

[Mach]

Re: justone - contradiction

When you say that you still reference MY post, why would you be pasting reference to YOUR post? Anyone can read for themselves what you posted.

Probably because my post is clear, concise, and links to your post, and quotes from your post, and shows where, specifically, you contradict yourself.

You know...the evidence of where and why you are incorrect. I know, I know, you prefer NO EVIDENCE for beliefs, but I cannot change that, only show how absurd and unethical it is.

If you need any other questions answered, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

-Mach

 

[Duke]

I hoped you could be different. But you are insinuating and insulting in the same way as all other atheists. I’ve claimed what I’ve claimed, but not what you are replying to.
No, I don't beleive that in the Western world, every single person believed in "the Judeo Christian God". Moreover I indicated that I did not have such a beleif. Do you beleive that in the Western world, every single person believed in "the Judeo Christian God"? And no, I am not living in a cave. Are you?

So NOW you are saying that atheism, seeing as that it is only one single idea, was just the same back in the olden days as now. It's a big thing for you to do, admit you were wrong.

No, it does not mean it at all. It is like a hobby common among people of all different beliefs, of course, if you don not mean zoophiles. Why are you asking?

You're using the idea that if a group of people share the same belief and discuss it, that this somehow makes them a dogma. You said this:

2. Atheism exists, but atheistic values and traditions don’t exist???
Please spare me from meaningless constructions which cannot exist in reality. Go to any atheistic site to learn basic atheistic values and traditions those sites represent, see their roots and their organization. Then try to break their strict rules and traditions in their ‘’churches - clubs.’’

Now, since perhaps a group of people that share the same belief as me are making values and traditions(according to you), all of a sudden all atheists have values and traditions?

No, you personally did not yet. I just guessed that as an atheist debating his belief you would have such a belief.

That's ridiculous. You are putting words in my mouth because you don't like my words.

So, you would agree that all atheists have a reasonably good idea what I am talking about when I (or you, or anybody) am talking about God?

I would imagine that a majority of Atheists have heard of the belief in some sort of god. Doesn't mean they're not an atheist.

Keep on pretending that you are wondering. But I am afraid you are suggesting that I am a kind of retarded. Otherwise, why would you be asking? Just wondering.

Honestly, it appears to me that you are speaking of knowledge of god and a belief in god as one.

I am puzzled- where did you find a definition or ‘’redefinition’’) in my post directed to you? And what are your arguments against the non-existing redefinition – whatever you have on your mind? I guess you are disreeing with something, what is that? What do you have on your mind, saying so?

Right here:

Describing atheists as those who carry no information about God leads to the description of atheists as those who are mentally retarded.

What's the problem?

I am puzzled again – I have been trying to prove that atheism does not mean the lack of knowledge of religion….

This has the implication that I think that atheism means the lack of knowledge of religion. I am sure that every atheist in this forum does not think that atheism is the lack of knowledge of religion. I'm sure we could agree that atheism is the lack of belief in religion, which you are using as the same.

Of course it does not, - I am puzzled – where did I say an opposite?

Seems like something you ought to know.

I would question if it is possible to have a knowledge of something and not to have a position regarding something. I am sure it is impossible to have knowledge of God and not to have ‘’position regarding God’’ ( sorry if my English is incorrect, I appreciate you bearing with me.)

Let me lay it out for you: I know people who belief in god, and I have heard of the belief in this god or that god. But I do not have a belief or a position on the topic.

Even the claim that you don’t have a position regarding God is a very determined position regarding God.

It's hardly a claim to me. It's sort of like, "no comment".

Sorry, got carried away. What is strange when somebody starts talking about the subject and gets carried away? It was a little bit inconsiderate towards you, but I hope you can accept my apologizes.

I was only wondering what it had to do with my one or two sentence post that somehow this was all about. :2razz:

You have not been paying attention to details in this life. God is in details.

No comment

I was working out some details trying to make myself more clear for myself and for others. I was not repeating myself – there was difference in details.

Might have just been an organization thing. No big deal.


Duke

 

[justone]

Re: justone - contradiction

Probably because my post is clear, concise, and links to your post, and quotes from your post, and shows where, specifically, you contradict yourself.

So, it does everything to avoid linking to my reply which trashes your ‘’clear and concise’’ post,

where you confuse my premises with my conclusions, cut my words out of context , impose that your words are my words, and do all other tricks pursuing your agenda with a relentness of a professional atheist, and that makes your post (and all your posts) very clear and convincing for the blind followers of atheism, but it does not make it anything more than that.

You know...the evidence of where and why you are incorrect. I know, I know, you prefer NO EVIDENCE for beliefs, but I cannot change that, only show how absurd and unethical it is.

You may say so. Whatever you type will appear on the screen with no sign of objection from the screen. What is shown on the screen makes your post (and all your posts) very clear and convincing for the blind followers of atheism, but it does not make it anything more than that.

As to myself, I have not expected too much ethics from you. I just said that you had been coming short from wondering around with your pants down. But it seems I overestimated you.

If you need any other questions answered, let me know and I'll see what I can do.

-Mach

Yes, I was going to continue my line of questioning in REASON vs. FAITH - about ways to acquire reasoning, but I was feeling that it was taking too much time to go through all the non-sense you piled in your reply. You piled it all in the such way, that it could make it very clear and convincing only for the blind followers of atheism, who are not interested in any sense and order .

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: justone - contradiction

So, it does everything to avoid linking to my reply which trashes your ‘’clear and concise’’ post,

where you confuse my premises with my conclusions, cut my words out of context , impose that your words are my words, and do all other tricks pursuing your agenda with a relentness of a professional atheist, and that makes your post (and all your posts) very clear and convincing for the blind followers of atheism, but it does not make it anything more than that.


You may say so. Whatever you type will appear on the screen with no sign of objection from the screen. What is shown on the screen makes your post (and all your posts) very clear and convincing for the blind followers of atheism, but it does not make it anything more than that.

As to myself, I have not expected too much ethics from you. I just said that you had been coming short from wondering around with your pants down. But it seems I overestimated you.

Yes, I was going to continue my line of questioning in REASON vs. FAITH - about ways to acquire reasoning, but I was feeling that it was taking too much time to go through all the non-sense you piled in your reply. You piled it all in the such way, that it could make it very clear and convincing only for the blind followers of atheism, who are not interested in any sense and order .

Can anyone count how many points were made in this post when compared to the times he said "Blind followers of Atheism" as if atheism is followed or as if atheists were blind. I count 0 and 3, Blind to what Justone?

Blind presupposes that others can see... Just what is observable that being atheist makes one blind to?

 

[justone]

So NOW you are saying that atheism, seeing as that it is only one single idea, was just the same back in the olden days as now. It's a big thing for you to do, admit you were wrong.

No .I am NOT. I have NEVER expressed, argued against or defended the statement that” atheism, seeing as that it is only one single idea, was just the same back in the olden days as now.” I’ve claimed what I’ve claimed, but not what you are replying to

You're using the idea that if a group of people share the same belief and discuss it, that this somehow makes them a dogma. You said this:
Quote:
2. Atheism exists, but atheistic values and traditions don’t exist???
Please spare me from meaningless constructions which cannot exist in reality. Go to any atheistic site to learn basic atheistic values and traditions those sites represent, see their roots and their organization. Then try to break their strict rules and traditions in their ‘’churches - clubs.’’

Yes, I said so. I was meaning only the belief regarding existence of God. Not a belief that cats are good pets and chess is the best game. Those are secular activities not related to G-d.

Now, since perhaps a group of people that share the same belief as me are making values and traditions(according to you), all of a sudden all atheists have values and traditions?

A group of people may have family values and traditions, like celebrating birthday, eating dinner at 8pm, driving over speed limit and not stopping at stop sign, collecting baseball cards, also they may organize themselves in a club of 8pm dinners, or M.A.D.D. – these are secular activities.
A group of people sharing the same belief including a position towards existence (non-existence ) of G-d have atheistic or theistic values and traditions and have to come to an organization where the single members are interconnected by at least one value. All atheists have at least one value and their outlook on human existence and human nature is the same in this point. ( theists may be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists , Pantheists and many others, and Christians may be Methodists, southern Baptists and many others, but they are united by at least one value which is the same). Both theists and atheists are not exactly making values, but they are more like following them. And your theistic or atheistic value does not come from nowhere (it is not born with your birth) – it is based on what you have learned from others and those you have chosen to learn from, - so you follow a tradition.

That's ridiculous. You are putting words in my mouth because you don't like my words.

You are still beating me when I am already dead in this particular point.I said I guessed and I did not stand for my guess when it turned to be wrong, there is not so much logic and facts behind a guess. Well you can contumue to your heats, my dead body does not react.

I would imagine that a majority of Atheists have heard of the belief in some sort of god. Doesn't mean they're not an atheist.

You’re right, it does not mean they are not atheists, I’ve never tried to impose an opposite meaning in my question. I would advice you not to use your imagination, but to take a look at the reality around you. Can you see the minority of atheists who are not a negligible exclusion from the majority? Please report them to me, so I would make a correction in my points.

Honestly, it appears to me that you are speaking of knowledge of god and a belief in god as one.

I don’t exactly understand, how it is answering my question; but - if it is any close to what you try to express - when you coin a thought you should try come to the shortest and the most inclusive one in the result. If I said ‘’belief in gods’’ it would not include those who believe in one God AND DENY many gods. So, I cannot formulate it as a belief in gods. If I say ‘’ in God’’, it means – in at least one god, including God, - it does not exclude those who believe in 2 gods, 3, 4 …123 gods.. If you ask me ‘’do you believe in gods?’’ – I would answer – no way. If you ask a polytheist ‘’do you believe in God?,’’ the answer would be – which one are you asking about, yes, I believe in the god of harvest and the god of wind and the god #N. The beauty of a thought, as well as a beauty of theorem or theory or an equation in physics is that it has to be the shortest and the most inclusive one in order to have the beauty of correctness.

Right here:Quote:
Describing atheists as those who carry no information about God leads to the description of atheists as those who are mentally retarded.
What's the problem?

It is not a definition or redefinition, it is an observation. If it was re-definition you would not have problem to point to the original definition I – in you opinion - try to redefine.

This has the implication that I think that atheism means the lack of knowledge of religion. I am sure that every atheist in this forum does not think that atheism is the lack of knowledge of religion.

I would hope so, but you are the first one I have run into, and I am not even sure youare, but not just saying that you are.

I'm sure we could agree that atheism is the lack of belief in religion, which you are using as the same.

I am not using ‘’the lack of knowledge of religion’’ as ‘’the lack of belief in religion.’’ If you are willing to read my posts you will see that I do not agree that atheism is the lack of belief in gods, or it is a lack of belief in supernatural gods, or it is a lack of belief in deities. I have found such definitions as designed to avoid the shortest and the most inclusive description of atheism, and moreover – to lead away from the essence of atheism. I may agree that atheism is underlined by the lack of understanding that atheism is a religion.

Seems like something you ought to know.

You could abstain from another implication that I am retarded and answer my question..........................................Or maybe you couldn't?

Let me lay it out for you: I know people who belief in god, and I have heard of the belief in this god or that god. But I do not have a belief or a position on the topic.
It's hardly a claim to me. It's sort of like, "no comment".

There is a position behind ‘’no comment”. It is more like you are taking the 5th. If you do not have a belief or position on the topic of God, you are an atheist, because if one can allow the thought that God may exist, one cannot have “no belief or a position on this topic”. If you can allow the thought that God may exist the next thought is imminent and immanent ( as Tashah would say) - you have to submit yourself to God, as He requires (or all gods require). Since you have not submitted yourself, you deny the idea that God may exist. You run away to the area, where God has no existence and as a result – no effect on you and your life, where you do not submit yourself to God – this is the area we can find you – in the position of an atheist. It is not an accusation, just a definition of your position regarding existence of God. I wish you to be well there.

 

[justone]

Re: justone - contradiction

Can anyone count how many points were made in this post when compared to the times he said "Blind followers of Atheism" as if atheism is followed or as if atheists were blind. I count 0 and 3, Blind to what Justone?

Blind presupposes that others can see... Just what is observable that being atheist makes one blind to?

As usual. It is not Justone, it is justone, - how many times did I have to point that to you before I came to conclusion that I could do it a countless amount of times, but you would not see, because you were blind?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: justone - contradiction

As usual. It is not Justone, it is justone,

Calm down, it was just a capital letter...

- how many times did I have to point that to you before I came to conclusion that I could do it a countless amount of times, but you would not see, because you were blind?

I'm sorry, was that english? If it is I must be blind :roll:

Point what out to me? What conclusions? How am I blind?
Do you ever make clear, direct, concise posts?

 

[justone]

Re: justone - contradiction

Calm down, it was just a capital letter...
Point what out to me? What conclusions? How am I blind?

My fault, I did not pay attention and I was sure I still was talking to Mach.
I did not realise that I was talking to one of the blind followers of atheism who finds his posts very clear and convincing .

Do you ever make clear, direct, concise posts?

You give me no choice but to answer no TO YOU.You have expressed many times, that my posts are full of logical fallacies and that you have pointed them to me and that I have never replied and I am cannot be reasoned, and many other things. And you have proved so by your own words. As an example I can send you to your last post, where you’ve replied to me instead of Mach, who have been making exactly the same points – that your posts are clear and convincing and logical and full of reasons, and my posts are not clear and convincing and they are not logical because Mach says so. And so you can always refer to you posts as to the truth. It is so easy to confuse you, Mach and tryreading, - human butts look a lot more alike than human thoughts and faces.

And yes, I have stated, that on the opposite sides, all Mach’s posts are very clear and convincing for the blind followers of atheism, who are not interested in any sense and order. Please confirm, that Mach’s posts are very clear and convincing for you, and site as an example his answer to my question on FAITH VS. REASON, so everyone can see that you are the one I am claiming you are.

 

[justone]

What I have never understood is WHY any religious conservative would want government to be involved in the business of religion.

Make a choice:
1. You are stupid.
2.all religious conservatives are stupid.
3. statement that religious conservative want government to be involved in the business of religion - is stupid.

Then let's compare which out 3 you checked and which one I checked..

 

[Duke]

No .I am NOT. I have NEVER expressed, argued against or defended the statement that” atheism, seeing as that it is only one single idea, was just the same back in the olden days as now.” I’ve claimed what I’ve claimed, but not what you are replying to

Mmmhmmm.

No, I don't beleive that in the Western world, every single person believed in "the Judeo Christian God".

Now, assuming that there was at least one atheist in the olden days, and he did not believe in God, how does his belief differ from me, now, not believing in god?

Yes, I said so. I was meaning only the belief regarding existence of God. Not a belief that cats are good pets and chess is the best game. Those are secular activities not related to G-d.
A group of people may have family values and traditions, like celebrating birthday, eating dinner at 8pm, driving over speed limit and not stopping at stop sign, collecting baseball cards, also they may organize themselves in a club of 8pm dinners, or M.A.D.D. – these are secular activities.
A group of people sharing the same belief including a position towards existence (non-existence ) of G-d have atheistic or theistic values and traditions and have to come to an organization where the single members are interconnected by at least one value. All atheists have at least one value and their outlook on human existence and human nature is the same in this point. ( theists may be Christians, Jews, Muslims, Deists , Pantheists and many others, and Christians may be Methodists, southern Baptists and many others, but they are united by at least one value which is the same). Both theists and atheists are not exactly making values, but they are more like following them. And your theistic or atheistic value does not come from nowhere (it is not born with your birth) – it is based on what you have learned from others and those you have chosen to learn from, - so you follow a tradition.

I don't see what your point in all this is, you've got to face this much fact: Atheism is simply no belief in god. Atheists have no belief in god. Any little club or organization created concerning atheism is immaterial.

Religions follow traditions, theism does, but atheism does not in all cases: I became atheist from observations, not teachings, not traditions.

You are still beating me when I am already dead in this particular point.I said I guessed and I did not stand for my guess when it turned to be wrong, there is not so much logic and facts behind a guess. Well you can contumue to your heats, my dead body does not react.

All you had to do is admit you were wrong. Thanks for doing so, it's something most people wouldn't do, for better or for worse.

You’re right, it does not mean they are not atheists, I’ve never tried to impose an opposite meaning in my question. I would advice you not to use your imagination, but to take a look at the reality around you. Can you see the minority of atheists who are not a negligible exclusion from the majority? Please report them to me, so I would make a correction in my points.

So, it appears that we have both established that, in all probability, atheists have heard of a god. What's your point? This does not change the definition of atheism: the lack of belief in a god.

I don’t exactly understand, how it is answering my question; but - if it is any close to what you try to express - when you coin a thought you should try come to the shortest and the most inclusive one in the result. If I said ‘’belief in gods’’ it would not include those who believe in one God AND DENY many gods. So, I cannot formulate it as a belief in gods. If I say ‘’ in God’’, it means – in at least one god, including God, - it does not exclude those who believe in 2 gods, 3, 4 …123 gods.. If you ask me ‘’do you believe in gods?’’ – I would answer – no way. If you ask a polytheist ‘’do you believe in God?,’’ the answer would be – which one are you asking about, yes, I believe in the god of harvest and the god of wind and the god #N. The beauty of a thought, as well as a beauty of theorem or theory or an equation in physics is that it has to be the shortest and the most inclusive one in order to have the beauty of correctness.

That's all well and good..........

Your thought here is interesting, but I don't think that the belief in one god is any more "correct" than the belief in another. I don't see how that could logically be unless it is proven that there is at least one god existing.

This is a little off topic, but why aren't you a polytheist?

I would hope so, but you are the first one I have run into, and I am not even sure youare, but not just saying that you are.

Pardon me, but I cannot see how an atheist, myself or anyone else, could possibly define atheism as the lack of knowledge of religion. I also cannot comprehend why you would possibly think that I, or any other atheist would think that atheism is the lack of knowledge of religion. Furthermore, a person who thinks he or she is an atheist because he or she has a lack of knowledge of religion......forget it, let's not go there, it makes too little sense.

I am not using ‘’the lack of knowledge of religion’’ as ‘’the lack of belief in religion.’’

Then why did you bring up this "lack of knowledge of religion" business anyway?

If you are willing to read my posts you will see that I do not agree that atheism is the lack of belief in gods, or it is a lack of belief in supernatural gods, or it is a lack of belief in deities. I have found such definitions as designed to avoid the shortest and the most inclusive description of atheism, and moreover – to lead away from the essence of atheism. I may agree that atheism is underlined by the lack of understanding that atheism is a religion.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the "essence of atheism"? And why is a theist trying to tell an atheist what the "essence of atheism"?

You say that you may agree that atheism is a 8. Do tell me how so. Allow me to remind you that this is what a religion is:

religion |ri?lij?n| noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion. • a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions.

You could abstain from another implication that I am retarded and answer my question..........................................Or maybe you couldn't?

Here we go:

theism |????iz?m| noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism .

Now do you agree that having a position concerning god does not make you a theist? I'm sure you do, but I'd like to hear it.

There is a position behind ‘’no comment”.

Let's use a different word: Is there a position on "no position concerning god"? It's what I'm defining.

If you do not have a belief or position on the topic of God, you are an atheist, because if one can allow the thought that God may exist, one cannot have “no belief or a position on this topic”.

Then explain to me how I do not have a position on the topic of god, although you say it is impossible.

I'd like to see someone try.


Duke

 

[justone]

Mmmhmmm.
Now, assuming that there was at least one atheist in the olden days, and he did not believe in God, how does his belief differ from me, now, not believing in god?

There was more than one atheist, the point was to argue your statement that there was plenty of atheists, - I said there was not plenty, but there was an amount which had a very negligible (no need to take in account) influence on the foundation of this country. You have pronounced the truth:
''how does his belief differ from me, now, not believing in go''. Yes you are united by the same belief, and yes his belief is as different from yours as a belief of a piligrim is different from mine.

I don't see what your point in all this is, you've got to face this much fact: Atheism is simply no belief in god. Atheists have no belief in god. Any little club or organization created concerning atheism is immaterial.

Yes, Atheism is simply no belief in god. Atheists have no belief in god. No.Any little club or organization created concerning atheism is material and has influence. And no, organization of atheism is different and i would say very different from let's say most of organizations of Christians, including those christians who claim that they are de-nominational cristians. Organisation of Osamabin Ladden military is different from organisation of US military. Cabooom as it has been demonstrated can be equaly strong. Cabooooms of atheism have been observed throughout 20th century - the most horrific ones in history.

Religions follow traditions, theism does, but atheism does not in all cases: I became atheist from observations, not teachings, not traditions.

think. You did not. First you were trusting to the warmth and smell of your mother, then you were trusting to her words that you had to go to schools, then you were trusting teachers she trusted, then you were trusting books she was reading to you reading, then you were trusting TV and papers, telling you about things you had not seen and had not been studying by yourself. Than, based on you experience and education you gave meanings to your observations. You don't exactly know what imposed atheistic point of on you. if you tryed to trace it you would see history, tradition and system of atheism. One cannot tell he became a theist or atheist from his own observation. God is not something which has to be observable, he may choose when he needs, but as a rule he does not, because he is God. And all of us think and imagine truth we have never seen, observed, studied and experienced personally. We all have to believers. God is not stupid.

All you had to do is admit you were wrong. Thanks for doing so, it's something most people wouldn't do, for better or for worse.

Admitting that one was wrong in an intellectual confrontation shows that one has done right thing and makes the confrontation intellectual. The one who addmits turns to be right (doing the right thing) and both sides go on being both right.

Pardon me, but I cannot see how an atheist, myself or anyone else, could possibly define atheism as the lack of knowledge of religion. I also cannot comprehend why you would possibly think that I, or any other atheist would think that atheism is the lack of knowledge of religion. Furthermore, a person who thinks he or she is an atheist because he or she has a lack of knowledge of religion......forget it, let's not go there, it makes too little sense.
Then why did you bring up this "lack of knowledge of religion" business anyway?

As you rightfully noticed, I was carried away from replying to your post. I still was thinking about Mach, Leachean and tryreading, and other hostile atheists who were out on the agenda to make no sense out of simple and self-evident reality. I had a WRONG impression that you were from the same gang of attacking activists. It is a kind of a relief to realize that I was WRONG.

So, it appears that we have both established that, in all probability, atheists have heard of a god. What's your point? This does not change the definition of atheism: the lack of belief in a god.

Yes it does. The definition should the shortest and the most inclusive (descriptive).The definition of the Oxford dictionary stands: Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. This definition is shorter and tells more about atheists (more descriptive, inclusive) than yours. It informs what particular belief atheists have instead of the belief in God. (your definition does not include those who believe in gods, but most likely you mistyped)
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=atheism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

That's all well and good..........

Your thought here is interesting, but I don't think that the belief in one god is any more "correct" than the belief in another. I don't see how that could logically be unless it is proven that there is at least one god existing.

This is not what I tried to say. I did not try to say that one belief is more correct. I tried to make the shortest and the most inclusive definition for monotheists, polytheists and deists – all in one. Now, from you answer I may see that even if my definition is as short as I want it to be, it may be a little bit confusing. The idea is that word a-theism generally means not-theism. Thus, if, according to the definition, atheism is the belief that God does not exists, theism should be the belief that God exists. Deists are not theists and are not atheists according to definitions, at the same time they as believe in a supreme being, as theists believe in the a supreme being or beings. Would it be right to say that the belief uniting monotheists, polytheists and deists is the belief in the existence of a superhuman (supreme?) being(s)? While the belief, uniting all atheists is the belief that no superhuman (supreme) being exists? Can we be on the same page here?

This is a little off topic, but why aren't you a polytheist?

It is just a little off the topic, but not so much, that I would not answer readily. No, you are referring to a belief common among many atheists. Trinity still is one God I worship. It is 3 of many sides of the same God, but none of those sides by itself is God separated from other Gods.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the "essence of atheism"? And why is a theist trying to tell an atheist what the "essence of atheism"?

?#1:it is the belief that God (supreme being(s)) does not exist. ?#2::I grew up as an atheist among atheists and, in order to be allowed to pursue my interest in physics I had to pass an exam on the subject called “scientific atheism’’, - so who knows more about atheists, you or me? You can only imagine, when I had seen personaly what atheism leads you to if it is allowed in the government.

You say that you may agree that atheism is a 8. Do tell me how so. Allow me to remind you that this is what a religion is:
Here we go:

theism |????iz?m| noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism .

You could be kind to provide the source of your definition.
Qoute from wikipedia: There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.
Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix.
The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity
OXFORD DICTIONARY: • noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Now do you agree that having a position concerning god does not make you a theist? I'm sure you do, but I'd like to hear it..

I have to repeat: I do agree: position concerning god does not make you a theist, it does not make you an atheist and it does not make you a deist. All of the above are humans and all of the above have a position a position concerning god, this is all what I am saying.

 

[justone]

Let's use a different word: Is there a position on "no position concerning god"? It's what I'm defining.
Then explain to me how I do not have a position on the topic of god, although you say it is impossible.
I'd like to see someone try.

Duke

You may have to clarify the question. I am not sure what are you trying to express. You call yourself an atheist. Isn't it a position? God does not exist, doesn’t He? Your position concerning God is that He does not exist. There is nothing there. Moreover, you know why, and if asked you can answer why? (From observation)

You have heard about God and have a reasonable knowledge what is God in general, and moreover you know a lot about different gods through history of humanity. You know exactly that God is the thing related to humans, no animals or plants or stones have a perception of God. All humans have knowledge similar to yours and thus all humans have a position concerning God. You know that the property of God and gods is to rule, submit, control, intervene or at least be the reason of existence of humans. Since you act and think like you do not submit to God, give him no power or control over you, do not consider him to be a reason of your existence, your position is of an atheist. God is so nothing for you that you claim “ to have no position concerning god.’’ But since you still think and act you think and from a position of one (or may be more) of numerous denominations of atheism (of course in your personal interpretation and perception, different from all other atheists of the same denomination as much as you deffer from them as a human). Secular humanism? Ethical Culture? Positivism? I don’t know which particular denomination you belong to, as well as you don’t know what particular section and what particular denomination (or even no-domination, as some of my co-thests define themselves) I belong to. The most popular of what I have seen is Positivism.Since you may not know what is the religion of positivism: Positivism is a system of philosophical and religious doctrines elaborated by Auguste Comte. Comte divided the progress of mankind into three historical stages:
1. Theological: relies on supernatural agencies to explain what man can't explain otherwise.
2. Metaphysical: man attributes effects to abstract but poorly understood causes.
3. "Positive": because man now understands the scientific laws which control the world.
As a philosophical system or method, Positivism denies the validity of metaphysical speculations, and maintains that the data of sense experience are the only object and the supreme criterion of human knowledge; as a religious system, it denies the existence of a personal God and takes humanity, "the great being", as the object of its veneration and cult. Positive thought includes all the sciences, which emerge in determinate order from their prescientific forms (i.e., mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology). Sociology (Comte's original coinage), the most synthetic form of knowledge, occupies the role of "queen of the sciences" once played by medieval theology. Sociology synthesizes the knowledge needed for proper social planning. In Comte's words, knowledge leads to prediction, which in turn leads to control. Some of the main beliefs of the cult are:
1. The belief that science is markedly cumulative;
2. The belief that science is predominantly transcultural;
3. The belief that science rests on specific results that are dissociated from the personality and social position of the investigator;
4. The belief that science contains theories or research traditions that are largely commensurable;
5. The belief that science sometimes incorporates new ideas that are discontinuous from old ones;
6. The belief that science involves the idea of the unity of science, that there is, underlying the various scientific disciplines, basically one science about one real world.


Anything about you?


















An idealistic love affair with Clothilde de Vaux, her death, and his subsequent mental collapse led Comte, upon recovery, to supplement his rationalist faith with the idea that human community can be achieved only through altruism (another linguistic invention), love, and their practical offspring, the Religion of Humanity. This cult worships the Great Being through the best examples of humanity, those "saints" from all over the globe who contributed most to morality, the sciences, and the arts.

 

[conquer]

Now what parts of these references prove your views are correct and me wrong. The government is neutral to denomination of religion but open to recognition of GOD… I don’t see how anyone could conclude otherwise our constitution and bill of rights reads out of John Locke and Conservatism that is also based on the higher being.

The point that the leaders in the beginning of US as a republic were religious people is a solid historical fact. However, sometimes I think that today the idea about "god" is different to the idea conceived in the minds of the Fathers of this country.

See?, in the past centuries, the common effort of a culture was to ask to their god for help in order to win a war.

In most of the cases, the god of the winner was imposed over the loser.

When the Fathers of the country mentioned the word "God", it appears to me, that they were referring solely to the God of the bible.

Of course today, the "new" idea is that this word "God" applies to any deity.

Again, this is my perception based in historical background by reviewing how the different cultures in the past behaved and believed about their gods.

It is hard to believe, for example, that when the current president Bush mentioned the words "so help me God," he was implying Buddha or Allah as well. (We should ask him, right?)

In those years, when this new country formed with a majority of Judeo-Christian followers, their intentions seem to imply "god" as the God of the bible and no one else. Please try to put yourself in accord to the ideas of those years. They don't seem to imply a universal god conformed of the several deities of the countries of the world in general as "one".

 

[Duke]

''how does his belief differ from me, now, not believing in go''. Yes you are united by the same belief, and yes his belief is as different from yours as a belief of a piligrim is different from mine.

Do explain to me how a pilgrim who has no belief in god differs from me, having no belief in god.

Yes, Atheism is simply no belief in god. Atheists have no belief in god. No.Any little club or organization created concerning atheism is material and has influence. And no, organization of atheism is different and i would say very different from let's say most of organizations of Christians, including those christians who claim that they are de-nominational cristians.

Let's compare and contrast, shall we:

The Roman Catholic Church is comprised of religious leaders and religious scripture. It is ruled by faith, worship, and the obeying of the religious laws, and the church effects all Catholics. Catholicism dictates certain laws, ways of living, and religious tenets. If you follow these rules and these leaders, you are considered a Catholic. If you obey none of these rules and don't give a damn about the leaders, you are not considered a Catholic.

Atheism.org is a website. It has a forum and a blog. It posts articles concerning atheism. it Atheism.org has rules or laws or tenets, they are not clearly visible. Atheism.org has no effect on an atheist living in Cambodia, and if the laws that Atheism.org may or may not have are not followed by said atheist, he is still an atheist.

think. You did not. First you were trusting to the warmth and smell of your mother, then you were trusting to her words that you had to go to schools, then you were trusting teachers she trusted, then you were trusting books she was reading to you reading, then you were trusting TV and papers, telling you about things you had not seen and had not been studying by yourself. Than, based on you experience and education you gave meanings to your observations. You don't exactly know what imposed atheistic point of on you. if you tryed to trace it you would see history, tradition and system of atheism. One cannot tell he became a theist or atheist from his own observation.

Of course, none of this is in the realm of fact or even logical conjecture, but I'll deal with it anyway:

Please describe this "tradition of atheism". What of the boy who was brought up in a Roman Catholic family in a Roman Catholic neighborhood and went to a Roman Catholic school until he decided to discontinue believing in god?

Let's look up the word "tradition" for our own benefit:

tradition |tr??di sh ?n| noun 1 the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way : every shade of color is fixed by tradition and governed by religious laws.

Now since I'm sure we'll get into this, we might as well define "transmit":

transmit |tranz?mit; trans-| verb ( -mitted , -mitting ) [ trans. ] cause (something) to pass on from one place or person to another

One could claim that atheism was somehow transmitted to me via tradition: However, tradition is "transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation". This is clearly false. And, if one is using a looser definition of tradition, atheism was not "passed on from one person or place" to me.

As you rightfully noticed, I was carried away from replying to your post. I still was thinking about Mach, Leachean and tryreading, and other hostile atheists who were out on the agenda to make no sense out of simple and self-evident reality. I had a WRONG impression that you were from the same gang of attacking activists. It is a kind of a relief to realize that I was WRONG.

I'll take your word for it.

Yes it does. The definition should the shortest and the most inclusive (descriptive).The definition of the Oxford dictionary stands: Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. This definition is shorter and tells more about atheists (more descriptive, inclusive) than yours. It informs what particular belief atheists have instead of the belief in God. (your definition does not include those who believe in gods, but most likely you mistyped)
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=atheism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

Now now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for descriptive and inclusive dictionary definition, so long as they are correct:

If someone does not believe there is no god, but they have no belief in god (this is starting to sound ridiculous), are they an atheist? Yes. If someone believes there is no god and has no belief in god, they are an atheist as well. So the definition of atheism as "a lack of belief in god" is more accurate and inclusive.

The idea is that word a-theism generally means not-theism. Thus, if, according to the definition, atheism is the belief that God does not exists, theism should be the belief that God exists.

Well, if theist means this:

Dictionary
theism |????iz?m| noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures

Then logically, atheism means, "not theism", that is, atheists do not have the belief in the existence of god.

About the definition of atheism:

I am an atheist. I do not believe in god. To me, it does not make sense to say an atheist "is a person who holds the belief that god does not exist" when you could use the definition "a person who does not believe in god" more easily; it works better.

Deists are not theists and are not atheists according to definitions, at the same time they as believe in a supreme being, as theists believe in the a supreme being or beings. Would it be right to say that the belief uniting monotheists, polytheists and deists is the belief in the existence of a superhuman (supreme?) being(s)? While the belief, uniting all atheists is the belief that no superhuman (supreme) being exists?

I agree that all people who believe in a supreme being are a part of one conglomerated group, simply god-believers. However, I see the people of the world either people in this group (god-believers) or people not in this group (atheists). The people outside of the god-believing group are not united in any way save that they all are not inside the god-believing group.

It is just a little off the topic, but not so much, that I would not answer readily. No, you are referring to a belief common among many atheists. Trinity still is one God I worship. It is 3 of many sides of the same God, but none of those sides by itself is God separated from other Gods.

This question, as good as it is, is ill-suited for this debate; I will not repeat it but perhaps find another place for it.

CONTINUED BELOW


Duke

 

[Duke]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

?#2::I grew up as an atheist among atheists and, in order to be allowed to pursue my interest in physics I had to pass an exam on the subject called “scientific atheism’’, - so who knows more about atheists, you or me? You can only imagine, when I had seen personaly what atheism leads you to if it is allowed in the government.

Well, I grew up as a theist among theists, although in a simple subject as atheism, background, early life, or tests taken have no bearing on the understanding of something as simple as atheism.

You can only imagine, when I had seen personaly what atheism leads you to if it is allowed in the government.

This statement alone nearly rendered me sick.

Now it appears we have two choices: theists in the government and atheists in the government. It would be trivial to bring up examples (Holocaust, Inquisition, Stalin), but let me say this:

Let us take the case of a man in the position of the presidency. He is supposed to represent the people of the United States equally and fairly (in theory). If he is a Roman Catholic, in his beliefs he is is automatically coming in contradiction with the Buddhists, Muslims, etc. of this nation. He has religious rules and laws to follow as well as (or instead of) the laws of the nation. There is a chance he may act on his beliefs, not by what may be best for the nation but because of his beliefs, the tenets he follows, and dogma of his religion, and the complexities brought about by religion.

Now let us say the president is an atheist. He has no belief in god, and his beliefs or lack of thereof on the topic conflict directly with no one's. He has no religious laws to follow and he will instead be inclined to do what's best for the country.

But the part that really makes me sick is "allowed in the government". The idea that the government should or would not allow a person to be a part of the United States government because of his beliefs or lack of thereof is one of the most un-American things I can think of.

Now I have seen personally what theism leads you to when it is allowed in the government, and it ain't always pretty, but it should still be legal
to run for office if you just so happen to be Catholic.

You could be kind to provide the source of your definition.

The Oxford American dictionary is my source.

Qoute from wikipedia: There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.
Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix.
The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:
Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity
OXFORD DICTIONARY: • noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

It appears that I have the Oxford American Dictionary here, here's the definition of Theism:

theism |????iz?m| noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism .

Here's the one on religion:

Dictionary
religion |ri?lij?n| noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion. • details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics. • a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions. • a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.

I have to repeat: I do agree: position concerning god does not make you a theist, it does not make you an atheist and it does not make you a deist. All of the above are humans and all of the above have a position a position concerning god, this is all what I am saying.

Well, here's where I'm coming from: having a position concerning god can make you one thing or another, but having no position concerning god would make you an atheist.


Duke

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I did not realise that I was talking to one of the blind followers of atheism who finds his posts very clear and convincing.

You didn't answer any of my questions. How can one be a blind follower of atheism? How am I blind? I follow no one, so justify your statement.

You have expressed many times, that my posts are full of logical fallacies and that you have pointed them to me and that I have never replied and I am cannot be reasoned, and many other things. And you have proved so by your own words. As an example I can send you to your last post, where you’ve replied to me instead of Mach, who have been making exactly the same points – that your posts are clear and convincing and logical and full of reasons, and my posts are not clear and convincing and they are not logical because Mach says so. And so you can always refer to you posts as to the truth.

OR you could address my arguments, and the fallacies that I point out. You could stop dodging questions and perhaps admit when you're wrong.

It is so easy to confuse you, Mach and tryreading, - human butts look a lot more alike than human thoughts and faces.

Oh wow, tactic 3 in your debate arsenal, ad hominems. And you dare call us attacking or vicious. We have been calm, fair, and have made no where near as many personal attacks as you.

And yes, I have stated, that on the opposite sides, all Mach’s posts are very clear and convincing for the blind followers of atheism, who are not interested in any sense and order.

There you are with your baseless claims again. How are we blind for being atheist and how are we thus not interested in sense or order?

Please confirm, that Mach’s posts are very clear and convincing for you, and site as an example his answer to my question on FAITH VS. REASON, so everyone can see that you are the one I am claiming you are.

His posts are quite clear and articulate, I agree with him so I need no convincing. You havent posed any questions on faith versus reason, but if you like I can CITE an example of your dodging many a question.

 

[Quik]

I think America was founded on Judeo-Christian Values based on the following…

There is nothing in the constitution that would indicate otherwise. There is nothing in the constitution relating to Secular values…

Well actually I have more reasons but research as you will and you will only find that separation of church and state was pushed by politics in the 1950’s by the Republican Party of all folks concerned by the influx of Catholics and their interest in politics. More recently the left has aligned with the court and others that the founders were secular and a wall was intended but it is all smoke and mirrors...

In this discussion we are speaking of the US Federal Government but if someone has information on state governments supporting the position then by all means present it.

So … was America founded on Judeo-Christian Values or Secular Values?

I'm no expert but I always thought the constitution was written by a lot of smart men who saw something great.

The people on the other hand were Christian.

 

[justone]

Do explain to me how a pilgrim who has no belief in god differs from me, having no belief in god.

I said belief of a pilgrim(=a theist) is different from my belief. And I said a belief of an early atheist is different from yours. And my perception of G is different from the perception of another member of our Church.

Let's compare and contrast, shall we:
The Roman Catholic Church is comprised of religious leaders and religious scripture. It is ruled by faith, worship, and the obeying of the religious laws, and the church effects all Catholics.

Atheism.org is a website. It has a forum and a blog. It posts articles concerning atheism. it Atheism.org has rules or laws or tenets, they are not clearly visible. Atheism.org has no effect on an atheist living in Cambodia, and if the laws that Atheism.org may or may not have are not followed by said atheist, he is still an atheist.

You have highlighted what I have been stating – organization of theists is different from organization of atheists. Organization of the Roman catholic church is different from organization of other denominations and it is different from organization of self proclaimed non-denominational Christians. And non-denominational Christians have no effect in Cambodia. Atheism.org is different from organization of many other “denominations of atheism’’, like Taoism as an example. Organization of a regular military is different from organization of “minuteman” military. You have also confirmed that Atheism.org has rules or laws or tenets, and they are not clearly visible. As the matter of fact one of the laws of atheism is to make its laws as less visible as possible in and to claim that they do not exist. ‘’The law of unclear laws’’ is one of the laws. Atheism.org is just one of peripheral nuts of the construction. As a rule I do not visit any of theism.org sites, it does not mean they do not attract theists visiting them once in a while or more often, - orbiting them as centers of gravity. I-net just makes organization or better to say organizations of atheism undeniable. Atheism is a very new religion, it has demonstrated its ability to crystallize in the structures a lot more rigid than Vatican (the USSR, N.Korea, Red China and others – are officially atheistic states – if you understand – they are more rigid than an Islamist states). This ability to crystallize in the right solution and at the right temperature is one of the principals of organization of atheism. The summary vector of movements of molecules of atheism is clearly directed towards achieving a state of the crystallization. Positivism, secular Humanism and similar – were the predominant denominations of atheism which resulted in organization of the atheistic states. I am fully aware that my view is a view of a mathematician whose eye is trained to look for organization, whatever complex and unclear it may look for an untrained eye. You’re describing organization of atheism and stating it does not exist.

Of course, none of this is in the realm of fact or even logical conjecture, but I'll deal with it anyway:

Please describe this "tradition of atheism". What of the boy who was brought up in a Roman Catholic family in a Roman Catholic neighborhood and went to a Roman Catholic school until he decided to discontinue believing in god?

Let's look up the word "tradition" for our own benefit:

And, if one is using a looser definition of tradition, atheism was not "passed on from one person or place" to me.

My goal is to avoid loose definitions. You have described family traditions. I was talking about generation after generation. Atheism, as we know it, is a quite young religion, like Christianity was in 300 a.d., but it has produced more thoughts and doctrines and has applied them to all sides of life, than Christianity in 300 a.d. You had to read books, watch TV, read newspapers etc, listen to people, and etc. in order to get your convictions. Thus points of atheism are passed to you from previous generations in the same smooth manner. You are not a founder of atheistic views, (you are the founder of them only inside you) - you learn from people, books etc, and you add some personal touches, as well as we all do.

Now now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for descriptive and inclusive dictionary definition, so long as they are correct:

If someone does not believe there is no god, but they have no belief in god (this is starting to sound ridiculous), are they an atheist? Yes.

1.No, if I don’t believe there is no G, it means only that I believe there is G. I am a theist.2. Yes, your construction sounds ridiculous, and fortunately you feel it.

To me, it does not make sense to say an atheist "is a person who holds the belief that god does not exist" when you could use the definition "a person who does not believe in god" more easily; it works better.

Then logically, atheism means, "not theism", that is, atheists have the belief in the existence of god.

What you have said is true, but it is not logical in the application, it does not inform what particular belief atheists have instead of the belief in God. Brunettes are those who do have dark hair. Blondes are those who do not have dark hair. It is true. But the question remains – what color of hair do blondes have and are they those who are bald? Your statement may mislead to understanding that blondes are those who are bald. And this “’logic”’ has been used by atheists to prove that they are bald (no hair of beliefs). It is another strict rule of the organization of atheism. It is like a common dogma for the most of denominations of atheisms.

I agree that all people who believe in a supreme being are a part of one conglomerated group, simply god-believers. However, I see the people of the world either people in this group (god-believers) or people not in this group (atheists). The people outside of the god-believing group are not united in any way save that they all are not inside the god-believing group.

Let’s take your description. Atheists are inside of one god-non-believing group. They are not outside of humanity. So, draw 2 circles (conglomerated groups). And fill them up with all different organizations – interconnections exchanging and passing and confirming different ideas. All individuals in each separate circle are different, there are numerous ways of organizations in each of the circles, - some are like an army, some are like a club, some are like a library. For an alien who does not have human attitudes there is not much difference between molecules moving and vibrating in each of the 2 circles. You can imagine G as an alien – He does not have human attitudes – He is the only one outside of the circles – observing the position of each molecule, each sub organization, each circle having different positions regarding his power, and thinking whom should he judge first in order to judge the contents of circles in the most efficient way. (Or an alien –to destroy the contents in the most efficient way).

Well, I grew up as a theist among theists, although in a simple subject as atheism, background, early life, or tests taken have no bearing on the understanding of something as simple as atheism.

Well I am afraid I am loosing you to the gang. I may have to choose between running away from you and shooting you. Repent, and I’ll forgive. Did you grow up in Vatican (if to imagine the iron curtain added to it)? You have no clue what you try to compare. Besides having no clue you insist on non-sense – ‘’passing an exam on the subject has no bearing on the understanding of the subject””. Did you ask one of the gangsters like Lachean to type it for you? Save your soul, Duke. If you don’t repent you will burn hell.

Now it appears we have two choices: theists in the government and atheists in the government.

No. No .No. Secular government, as it was founded. Or I would have to shoot you, even if you’re sick. Let me skip your arguments. If you insist I may try to answer one day, but I cannot promise, - other things in life, please do not consider that, I am avoiding putting a few bullets in your head. Secular government, secular schools when supported by the government, secular science, secular courts, - it is a very rooted Christian tradition, the result of centuries of struggle, and I am a Christian.

The Oxford American dictionary is

Strange … and what is that: http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk? I am getting it – UK. Does yours have a site?
But anyway: ‘’a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance’’. ‘’Consumerism is the new religion.’’ (as I stated atheism is a new religion).’’A particular system of faith and worship’’. Please do not imagine worship, like a catholic ritual, it may be for an instance: great admiration or devotion. Like you are devoted to your ''observations'' to make you convictions..
And what is that: ideas about the relationship between science and religion???? What are those ideas????
CONTINUED BELOW

 

[justone]

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

Well, here's where I'm coming from: having a position concerning god can make you one thing or another, but having no position concerning god would make you an atheist.

I already answered it 2 times. Your position concerning G is that you know G does not exist. So, - as the result of you conviction concerning rumors about G – you have to do the next step and think that there may be no position concerning something which does not exist. It is not your position, but it is the expression, the result of your position. Your real position is your conviction that G does not exist. You had accepted such a position, when you learned rumors about G. From this position you conclude – since G does not exist, there may be no position concerning something which does not exist. As the next step, you think, that my statement that there may be a position concerning something which does not exist is illogical, if not to say ridiculous. This is a very common way of thinking of an atheist. What has made you different from many others here, is that you have not shown hostility and an urge to destroy your opponent ‘’whatever it takes’’ on the base that you have a superior logic and rational. I have a good feeling that you have been thinking. This makes you a worthy opponent because it helps me to think and formulate new thoughts, which had not been formulated or structured prior to our conversation. Unfortunately, I had wasted a lot time on those who are so convicted in superiority of their logic and rational, that they use their ‘’superiority’’ as reference and an argument. Now I have to cut it short on DP, as soon as I can and go back to a lot of other secular things I have to do. It has been a pleasure so far, (provided that you repent in one point), feel free to reply, I may read, I may reply, but most likely I wouldn’t, at least any soon.

 

[tryreading]

I'm no expert but I always thought the constitution was written by a lot of smart men who saw something great.

The people on the other hand were Christian.

Good point. But not all of them were Christian.

 

[Duke]

You have highlighted what I have been stating – organization of theists is different from organization of atheists. Organization of the Roman catholic church is different from organization of other denominations and it is different from organization of self proclaimed non-denominational Christians. And non-denominational Christians have no effect in Cambodia. Atheism.org is different from organization of many other “denominations of atheism’’, like Taoism as an example. Organization of a regular military is different from organization of “minuteman” military. You have also confirmed that Atheism.org has rules or laws or tenets, and they are not clearly visible. As the matter of fact one of the laws of atheism is to make its laws as less visible as possible in and to claim that they do not exist. ‘’The law of unclear laws’’ is one of the laws. Atheism.org is just one of peripheral nuts of the construction. As a rule I do not visit any of theism.org sites, it does not mean they do not attract theists visiting them once in a while or more often, - orbiting them as centers of gravity. I-net just makes organization or better to say organizations of atheism undeniable. Atheism is a very new religion, it has demonstrated its ability to crystallize in the structures a lot more rigid than Vatican (the USSR, N.Korea, Red China and others – are officially atheistic states – if you understand – they are more rigid than an Islamist states). This ability to crystallize in the right solution and at the right temperature is one of the principals of organization of atheism. The summary vector of movements of molecules of atheism is clearly directed towards achieving a state of the crystallization. Positivism, secular Humanism and similar – were the predominant denominations of atheism which resulted in organization of the atheistic states. I am fully aware that my view is a view of a mathematician whose eye is trained to look for organization, whatever complex and unclear it may look for an untrained eye. You’re describing organization of atheism and stating it does not exist.

You're missing my point. There are atheists who have organized into groups, or even into "religions" as you state (Although it's doubtful), but that does not make atheism a religion. That might make these people at athiesm.org religious(assuming that it is a religion, but that's not the point), but it does not make atheism a religion. Only them. See, I don't follow any laws or tenets of their groups, and I'm still an atheist. Hence, atheism is not a religion.

See, there are atheists who have organized. But atheism itself is not an organization.

My goal is to avoid loose definitions.

Well, the Oxy English isn't exactly loose, either. Dictionary
tradition |tr??di sh ?n| noun 1 the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way : every shade of color is fixed by tradition and governed by religious laws. • a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way : Japan's unique cultural traditions. • [in sing. ] an artistic or literary method or style established by an artist, writer, or movement, and subsequently followed by others : visionary works in the tradition of William Blake.

You have described family traditions. I was talking about generation after generation. Atheism, as we know it, is a quite young religion, like Christianity was in 300 a.d.

Let's go over this again, shall we?

a=no. Theism=belief in god. a+theism=no belief in god.

religion |ri?lij?n| noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion. • details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics. • a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions

Now that we know that atheism:
Has no beliefs,
Has no worship,
Has no faith,

We can establish that atheism is not a religion. Also, atheism is not young. Two hundred thousand years ago, a human being living in Africa had no belief in god. He was an atheist. Atheism was born before any religion, as soon as man could think.

but it has produced more thoughts and doctrines and has applied them to all sides of life, than Christianity in 300 a.d.

Please give me one example of atheist doctrine.

"Atheism" has applied no doctrines or thoughts on anything. "Atheists" have.

You had to read books, watch TV, read newspapers etc, listen to people, and etc. in order to get your convictions.

No I don't. I was an atheist before I ever had a conversation on the topic, before I ever watched TV, and before I ever could even read. The difference is is that I never converted.

Thus points of atheism are passed to you from previous generations in the same smooth manner. You are not a founder of atheistic views, (you are the founder of them only inside you) - you learn from people, books etc, and you add some personal touches, as well as we all do.

Prove it. I was born an atheist and I stayed an atheist. Religion is passed on, lack of religion isn't.

1.No, if I don’t believe there is no G, it means only that I believe there is G. I am a theist.2. Yes, your construction sounds ridiculous, and fortunately you feel it.

I'll restate that. Say there is a person who has no belief in god. Period. But he does not hold "The theory or belief that god does not exist". He's still an atheist. The definition is not complete.

What you have said is true, but it is not logical in the application, it does not inform what particular belief atheists have instead of the belief in God. Brunettes are those who do have dark hair. Blondes are those who do not have dark hair. It is true. But the question remains – what color of hair do blondes have and are they those who are bald? Your statement may mislead to understanding that blondes are those who are bald. And this “’logic”’ has been used by atheists to prove that they are bald (no hair of beliefs). It is another strict rule of the organization of atheism. It is like a common dogma for the most of denominations of atheisms.

That's absolutly wrong. There is only one thing to atheism: one part, doctrine tenet, law, whatever, atheist have no belief in god.

Let's break it down again:

a=no or not + theism=belief in god. a+theism=no belief in god, without belief in god. It's not dogma, or anything else, it's the one thing you must not have to be an atheist, no belief in god.

Let’s take your description. Atheists are inside of one god-non-believing group. They are not outside of humanity. So, draw 2 circles (conglomerated groups). And fill them up with all different organizations – interconnections exchanging and passing and confirming different ideas. All individuals in each separate circle are different, there are numerous ways of organizations in each of the circles, - some are like an army, some are like a club, some are like a library. For an alien who does not have human attitudes there is not much difference between molecules moving and vibrating in each of the 2 circles. You can imagine G as an alien – He does not have human attitudes – He is the only one outside of the circles – observing the position of each molecule, each sub organization, each circle having different positions regarding his power, and thinking whom should he judge first in order to judge the contents of circles in the most efficient way. (Or an alien –to destroy the contents in the most efficient way).

What's that got to do with it? I am dealing with only one type of group: having to do with the belief of god. There are the believers and the non-believers, two groups: and in this discussion, that's all that matters.

Well I am afraid I am loosing you to the gang. I may have to choose between running away from you and shooting you. Repent, and I’ll forgive. Did you grow up in Vatican (if to imagine the iron curtain added to it)? You have no clue what you try to compare. Besides having no clue you insist on non-sense – ‘’passing an exam on the subject has no bearing on the understanding of the subject””.

By the way, in the post you quoted I meant to say I grew up an atheist among theists.

Passing (or failing) an exam on the subject has no bearing on one's understanding of atheism because there is only one thing to be understood: that atheists are those who have no belief in god.

Did you ask one of the gangsters like Lachean to type it for you? Save your soul, Duke. If you don’t repent you will burn hell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't hell burning already? :2razz:

But honestly, do you have in proof of these hell-burning claims?

No. No .No. Secular government, as it was founded. Or I would have to shoot you, even if you’re sick. Let me skip your arguments.

Look, you can give up whenever you want. Please feel free.


Duke

 

[Duke]

You have highlighted what I have been stating – organization of theists is different from organization of atheists. Organization of the Roman catholic church is different from organization of other denominations and it is different from organization of self proclaimed non-denominational Christians. And non-denominational Christians have no effect in Cambodia. Atheism.org is different from organization of many other “denominations of atheism’’, like Taoism as an example. Organization of a regular military is different from organization of “minuteman” military. You have also confirmed that Atheism.org has rules or laws or tenets, and they are not clearly visible. As the matter of fact one of the laws of atheism is to make its laws as less visible as possible in and to claim that they do not exist. ‘’The law of unclear laws’’ is one of the laws. Atheism.org is just one of peripheral nuts of the construction. As a rule I do not visit any of theism.org sites, it does not mean they do not attract theists visiting them once in a while or more often, - orbiting them as centers of gravity. I-net just makes organization or better to say organizations of atheism undeniable. Atheism is a very new religion, it has demonstrated its ability to crystallize in the structures a lot more rigid than Vatican (the USSR, N.Korea, Red China and others – are officially atheistic states – if you understand – they are more rigid than an Islamist states). This ability to crystallize in the right solution and at the right temperature is one of the principals of organization of atheism. The summary vector of movements of molecules of atheism is clearly directed towards achieving a state of the crystallization. Positivism, secular Humanism and similar – were the predominant denominations of atheism which resulted in organization of the atheistic states. I am fully aware that my view is a view of a mathematician whose eye is trained to look for organization, whatever complex and unclear it may look for an untrained eye. You’re describing organization of atheism and stating it does not exist.

You're missing my point. There are atheists who have organized into groups, or even into "religions" as you state (Although it's doubtful), but that does not make atheism a religion. That might make these people at athiesm.org religious(assuming that it is a religion, but that's not the point), but it does not make atheism a religion. Only them. See, I don't follow any laws or tenets of their groups, and I'm still an atheist. Hence, atheism is not a religion.

See, there are atheists who have organized. But atheism itself is not an organization.

My goal is to avoid loose definitions.

Well, the Oxy English isn't exactly loose, either. Dictionary
tradition |tr??di sh ?n| noun 1 the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way : every shade of color is fixed by tradition and governed by religious laws. • a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way : Japan's unique cultural traditions. • [in sing. ] an artistic or literary method or style established by an artist, writer, or movement, and subsequently followed by others : visionary works in the tradition of William Blake.

You have described family traditions. I was talking about generation after generation. Atheism, as we know it, is a quite young religion, like Christianity was in 300 a.d.

Let's go over this again, shall we?

a=no. Theism=belief in god. a+theism=no belief in god.

religion |ri?lij?n| noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion. • details of belief as taught or discussed : when the school first opened they taught only religion, Italian, and mathematics. • a particular system of faith and worship : the world's great religions

Now that we know that atheism:
Has no beliefs,
Has no worship,
Has no faith,

We can establish that atheism is not a religion. Also, atheism is not young. Two hundred thousand years ago, a human being living in Africa had no belief in god. He was an atheist. Atheism was born before any religion, as soon as man could think.

but it has produced more thoughts and doctrines and has applied them to all sides of life, than Christianity in 300 a.d.

Please give me one example of atheist doctrine.

"Atheism" has applied no doctrines or thoughts on anything. "Atheists" have.

You had to read books, watch TV, read newspapers etc, listen to people, and etc. in order to get your convictions.

No I don't. I was an atheist before I ever had a conversation on the topic, before I ever watched TV, and before I ever could even read. The difference is is that I never converted.

Thus points of atheism are passed to you from previous generations in the same smooth manner. You are not a founder of atheistic views, (you are the founder of them only inside you) - you learn from people, books etc, and you add some personal touches, as well as we all do.

Prove it. I was born an atheist and I stayed an atheist. Religion is passed on, lack of religion isn't.

1.No, if I don’t believe there is no G, it means only that I believe there is G. I am a theist.2. Yes, your construction sounds ridiculous, and fortunately you feel it.

I'll restate that. Say there is a person who has no belief in god. Period. But he does not hold "The theory or belief that god does not exist". He's still an atheist. The definition is not complete.

What you have said is true, but it is not logical in the application, it does not inform what particular belief atheists have instead of the belief in God. Brunettes are those who do have dark hair. Blondes are those who do not have dark hair. It is true. But the question remains – what color of hair do blondes have and are they those who are bald? Your statement may mislead to understanding that blondes are those who are bald. And this “’logic”’ has been used by atheists to prove that they are bald (no hair of beliefs). It is another strict rule of the organization of atheism. It is like a common dogma for the most of denominations of atheisms.

That's absolutly wrong. There is only one thing to atheism: one part, doctrine tenet, law, whatever, atheist have no belief in god.

Let's break it down again:

a=no or not + theism=belief in god. a+theism=no belief in god, without belief in god. It's not dogma, or anything else, it's the one thing you must not have to be an atheist, no belief in god.

Let’s take your description. Atheists are inside of one god-non-believing group. They are not outside of humanity. So, draw 2 circles (conglomerated groups). And fill them up with all different organizations – interconnections exchanging and passing and confirming different ideas. All individuals in each separate circle are different, there are numerous ways of organizations in each of the circles, - some are like an army, some are like a club, some are like a library. For an alien who does not have human attitudes there is not much difference between molecules moving and vibrating in each of the 2 circles. You can imagine G as an alien – He does not have human attitudes – He is the only one outside of the circles – observing the position of each molecule, each sub organization, each circle having different positions regarding his power, and thinking whom should he judge first in order to judge the contents of circles in the most efficient way. (Or an alien –to destroy the contents in the most efficient way).

What's that got to do with it? I am dealing with only one type of group: having to do with the belief of god. There are the believers and the non-believers, two groups: and in this discussion, that's all that matters.

Well I am afraid I am loosing you to the gang. I may have to choose between running away from you and shooting you. Repent, and I’ll forgive. Did you grow up in Vatican (if to imagine the iron curtain added to it)? You have no clue what you try to compare. Besides having no clue you insist on non-sense – ‘’passing an exam on the subject has no bearing on the understanding of the subject””.

By the way, in the post you quoted I meant to say I grew up an atheist among theists.

Passing (or failing) an exam on the subject has no bearing on one's understanding of atheism because there is only one thing to be understood: that atheists are those who have no belief in god.

Did you ask one of the gangsters like Lachean to type it for you? Save your soul, Duke. If you don’t repent you will burn hell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't hell burning already? :2razz:

But honestly, do you have in proof of these hell-burning claims?

No. No .No. Secular government, as it was founded. Or I would have to shoot you, even if you’re sick. Let me skip your arguments.

Look, you can give up whenever you want. Please feel free.


Duke