Re: OT 'There is a god!'

[email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Atheism is a "religion" because they "believe" there is no God.[/color]
>
> A common but erroneous quip. Religion implies belief in a
> supernatural entity. NOT believing in such a thing places one, by
> definition, outside the domain of religion. Atheism is not a
> religion but one aspect of philosophy.[/color]

Since you "got it" the first time, let me say that philosophy too embraces
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Belief in a God
(Creator, if you prefer) is not the only requirement for a belief system to
qualify as a 'religion.' The minimum requirement is adherence to a personal
set of institutionalized beliefs. Atheism qualifies.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Since you "got it" the first time, let me say that philosophy too[/color]
embraces[color=blue]
> "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."[/color]

Well, to be precise, SOME philosophies (including mine) do embrace
that, because it's logically true. Other philosophies deny the
validity of logic.
[color=blue]
> Belief in a God
> (Creator, if you prefer) is not the only requirement for a belief[/color]
system to[color=blue]
> qualify as a 'religion.' The minimum requirement is adherence to a[/color]
personal[color=blue]
> set of institutionalized beliefs. Atheism qualifies.[/color]

At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which point
I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments. I disagree
with the definition you quote (or made up) above. Mine comes from the
American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:

Religion:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief
and worship.

Atheism (to get into MORE semantics), is NOT a belief, much less a "set
of institutionalized beliefs". It is the ABSENCE of a belief in any
kind of deity (not just the Christian God). Claiming it's a religion
is like claiming NOT wearing a watch is a type of watch-wearing.

[email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Since you "got it" the first time, let me say that philosophy too
>> embraces "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."[/color]
>
> Well, to be precise, SOME philosophies (including mine) do embrace
> that, because it's logically true. Other philosophies deny the
> validity of logic.
>[color=green]
>> Belief in a God
>> (Creator, if you prefer) is not the only requirement for a belief
>> system to qualify as a 'religion.' The minimum requirement is
>> adherence to a personal set of institutionalized beliefs. Atheism
>> qualifies.[/color]
>
> At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which point
> I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments. I disagree
> with the definition you quote (or made up) above. Mine comes from the
> American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:
>
> Religion:
> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
> regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
> 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief
> and worship.[/color]

To "stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments" is a reaction to a
threat to your belief system.

Ironically, the third definition of the word 'religion' from Merriam Webster
states: "3. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs,
attitudes, and practices."
[color=blue]
> Atheism (to get into MORE semantics), is NOT a belief, much less a
> "set of institutionalized beliefs". It is the ABSENCE of a belief in
> any kind of deity (not just the Christian God). Claiming it's a
> religion is like claiming NOT wearing a watch is a type of
> watch-wearing.[/color]

This is false. Atheism catagorically and militantly denies the existence of
any God. Agnosticism is more logical and pragmatic in that it asserts the
existence of any ultimate reality (ie, God) is unknown and probably
unknowable.
--

- Philip

In article <1109266657.317187.326360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
[email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > Since you "got it" the first time, let me say that philosophy too[/color]
> embraces[color=green]
> > "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."[/color]
>
> Well, to be precise, SOME philosophies (including mine) do embrace
> that, because it's logically true. Other philosophies deny the
> validity of logic.
>[color=green]
> > Belief in a God
> > (Creator, if you prefer) is not the only requirement for a belief[/color]
> system to[color=green]
> > qualify as a 'religion.' The minimum requirement is adherence to a[/color]
> personal[color=green]
> > set of institutionalized beliefs. Atheism qualifies.[/color]
>
> At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which point
> I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments. I disagree
> with the definition you quote (or made up) above. Mine comes from the
> American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:
>
> Religion:
> 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
> regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
> 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief
> and worship.
>
> Atheism (to get into MORE semantics), is NOT a belief, much less a "set
> of institutionalized beliefs". It is the ABSENCE of a belief in any
> kind of deity (not just the Christian God). Claiming it's a religion
> is like claiming NOT wearing a watch is a type of watch-wearing.[/color]

My dictionary (Oxford American Dictionary) says "Something compared to
religious faith as a controlling influence on a person's life, football
is his religion" and "A particular system of faith and worship, the
Christian religion". My other dictionary, The American Heritage
Dictionary, new college edition 1975 says "Any objective attended to or
pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion". Then to my old Webster's
New World Dictionary, second college edition 1972 says "any object of
conscientious regard and pursuit".
--

[email]diel@spam.com[/email] wrote:
snip[color=blue]
> My other dictionary, The American Heritage Dictionary,
> new college edition 1975 says:
> "Any objective attended to or pursued with zeal or
> conscientious devotion".[/color]

snip

Oooooo! \8^) I like that one!
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:[color=blue]
> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which[/color][/color]
point[color=blue][color=green]
> > I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments.[/color]
>
> To "stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments" is a reaction to[/color]
a[color=blue]
> threat to your belief system.[/color]

Please. Quitting reading semantics-based arguments is a reaction to
being bored, not threatened (except with a waste of one's precious time
on earth). And I bring it up to note that, if other readers are like
me, you and I are the only ones still reading this as the others have
already quit out of boredom, not because "their belief systems are
threatened."
[color=blue]
> Ironically, the third definition of the word 'religion' from Merriam[/color]
Webster[color=blue]
> states: "3. a personal set or institutionalized system of religious[/color]
beliefs,[color=blue]
> attitudes, and practices."[/color]

Ironically, it uses the word "religious" in defining religion, so you
have to backtrack to the definition *I* used, which is not
circular...and is where the idea of a supernatural powers is
introduced.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Atheism (to get into MORE semantics), is NOT a belief, much less a
> > "set of institutionalized beliefs". It is the ABSENCE of a belief[/color][/color]
in[color=blue][color=green]
> > any kind of deity (not just the Christian God). Claiming it's a
> > religion is like claiming NOT wearing a watch is a type of
> > watch-wearing.[/color]
>
> This is false. Atheism catagorically and militantly denies the[/color]
existence of[color=blue]
> any God.[/color]

You're wrong. More boring semantics follows, but since you and I are
the only ones reading I'll plow on.

"a" is a negating prefix. "Theist" refers to anyone who believes in
some deity. So the two terms, "theist" and "a-theist" logically divide
all of mankind into two groups, those who believe in some deity and
those who don't. Under this definition, babies (as well as many other
humans) are atheists, as it is certainly true that babies to not
believe in a deity.

There is a subgroup of atheists, called "positive atheists" who assert
that "there is no God", as yo umention above. But anyone making that
statement would be wise to ask for a definition of "God"...it would be
silly to say "There is no God" if what's meant by "God" is "nature", as
some theists (pantheists) assert. I can say with confidence that an
entity with the self-contradictory attributes traditionally ascribed to
the Christian God (e.g., omnipotence and omniscience), cannot exist.
[color=blue]
> Agnosticism is more logical and pragmatic in that it asserts the
> existence of any ultimate reality (ie, God) is unknown and probably
> unknowable.[/color]

Theism vs. atheism refers to whether or not God (or gods) exists.
Agnosticism refers to whether or not one can have knowledge about God
(or gods). There have been Christian and Jewish agnostic theists, who
state that God exists but that man can have no knowledge of Him/Her/It.

You (or anyone else who might accidentally have read this far) will
find a wealth of very readable information on this in _Atheism: The
Case Against God_ by George H Smith. The first two-thirds of the book
deal with gods in general, and the last few chapters specifically with
the Christian God.

[email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:

snip
[color=blue]
>You (or anyone else who might accidentally have read this far) will
>find a wealth of very readable information on this in _Atheism: The
>Case Against God_ by George H Smith. The first two-thirds of the book
>deal with gods in general, and the last few chapters specifically with
>the Christian God.[/color]

Interesting!...

You familiar with the Sam Harris book "The End Of Faith" ?
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:[color=green]
>> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which
>>> point I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments.[/color]
>>
>> To "stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments" is a reaction
>> to a threat to your belief system.[/color]
>
> Please. Quitting reading semantics-based arguments is a reaction to
> being bored, not threatened (except with a waste of one's precious
> time on earth). And I bring it up to note that, if other readers are
> like me, you and I are the only ones still reading this as the others
> have already quit out of boredom, not because "their belief systems
> are threatened."[/color]

Feigning boredom is your method of escape. Truly your condescension toward
me is also responsible for your belief that nobody but you and I are reading
this thread now. Introduce yourself to Gord. He is a patient fellow and a
kindered spirit. LOL I leave you to your belief systems.
--

- Philip

Gord Beaman wrote:[color=blue]
> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:
>[color=green]
> >find a wealth of very readable information on this in _Atheism: The
> >Case Against God_ by George H Smith. The first two-thirds of the[/color][/color]
book[color=blue][color=green]
> >deal with gods in general, and the last few chapters specifically[/color][/color]
with[color=blue][color=green]
> >the Christian God.[/color]
>
> Interesting!...
>
> You familiar with the Sam Harris book "The End Of Faith" ?[/color]

No, but from a quick review of the blurbs at bn.com it sounds very
good. "...presents major religious systems like Judaism, Christianity
and Islam as forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental
tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and, important when it comes to
matters of humanity's long-term survival, mutually incompatible."
Sounds right on. Unfortunately for us non-Muslims, of the three above
only Islam sanctions in principle the obliteration of one's religious
opponents.

I can only shake my head in despair when religious conservatives here
approve of the U.S. war against Islamic fundamentalists, but will go
the mattresses to defend the practice of having a mullah invoke Allah's
blessing before sessions of Congress, mobilize armies against removing
"under Allah" from the Pledge of Allegiance or "In Allah We Trust" from
the national coinage, and are firmly convinced that liberty is a gift
from Allah. Or wait...I think G o d is how they spell "Allah".
Whatever. I'm always confusing the two.

In article <zRqTd.6142$Ba3.5040@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
[color=blue]
> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=green]
> > Philip wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:
> >>>
> >>> At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which
> >>> point I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments.
> >>
> >> To "stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments" is a reaction
> >> to a threat to your belief system.[/color]
> >
> > Please. Quitting reading semantics-based arguments is a reaction to
> > being bored, not threatened (except with a waste of one's precious
> > time on earth). And I bring it up to note that, if other readers are
> > like me, you and I are the only ones still reading this as the others
> > have already quit out of boredom, not because "their belief systems
> > are threatened."[/color]
>
> Feigning boredom is your method of escape. Truly your condescension toward
> me is also responsible for your belief that nobody but you and I are reading
> this thread now. Introduce yourself to Gord. He is a patient fellow and a
> kindered spirit. LOL I leave you to your belief systems.[/color]

Philip listen up sir, me thinks you deal with yet another far lefty
here. Beg off I say, and let them wallow in their own mud of grief.
--

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:12:30 GMT, <diel@spam.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <zRqTd.6142$Ba3.5040@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > Philip wrote:
>> >> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which
>> >>> point I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments.
>> >>
>> >> To "stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments" is a reaction
>> >> to a threat to your belief system.
>> >
>> > Please. Quitting reading semantics-based arguments is a reaction to
>> > being bored, not threatened (except with a waste of one's precious
>> > time on earth). And I bring it up to note that, if other readers are
>> > like me, you and I are the only ones still reading this as the others
>> > have already quit out of boredom, not because "their belief systems
>> > are threatened."[/color]
>>
>> Feigning boredom is your method of escape. Truly your condescension toward
>> me is also responsible for your belief that nobody but you and I are reading
>> this thread now. Introduce yourself to Gord. He is a patient fellow and a
>> kindered spirit. LOL I leave you to your belief systems.[/color]
>
>Philip listen up sir, me thinks you deal with yet another far lefty
>here. Beg off I say, and let them wallow in their own mud of grief.[/color]

LOL....Philip is having fun with another Lib...

Let him get after him some more.

He (not Philip) will tire of it soon and slip off into the sunset to
talk with Howard Dean...


--
Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" <NotInTheNextLifetime@nope.ucan't> wrote in message
news:rn0t111faqvh3323g76ogeh8l4s2m6vg4a@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:12:30 GMT, <diel@spam.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>In article <zRqTd.6142$Ba3.5040@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:
>>> > Philip wrote:
>>> >> [email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which
>>> >>> point I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments.
>>> >>
>>> >> To "stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments" is a reaction
>>> >> to a threat to your belief system.
>>> >
>>> > Please. Quitting reading semantics-based arguments is a reaction to
>>> > being bored, not threatened (except with a waste of one's precious
>>> > time on earth). And I bring it up to note that, if other readers are
>>> > like me, you and I are the only ones still reading this as the others
>>> > have already quit out of boredom, not because "their belief systems
>>> > are threatened."
>>>
>>> Feigning boredom is your method of escape. Truly your condescension
>>> toward
>>> me is also responsible for your belief that nobody but you and I are
>>> reading
>>> this thread now. Introduce yourself to Gord. He is a patient fellow and
>>> a
>>> kindered spirit. LOL I leave you to your belief systems.[/color]
>>
>>Philip listen up sir, me thinks you deal with yet another far lefty
>>here. Beg off I say, and let them wallow in their own mud of grief.[/color]
>
> LOL....Philip is having fun with another Lib...
>
> Let him get after him some more.
>
> He (not Philip) will tire of it soon and slip off into the sunset to
> talk with Howard Dean...
>
>[/color]
Phillip already said he'd give me the last word, but obviously his word
is no good.

Philip wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Atheism is a "religion" because they "believe" there is no God.[/color]

A common but erroneous quip. Religion implies belief in a supernatural
entity. NOT believing in such a thing places one, by definition,
outside the domain of religion. Atheism is not a religion but one
aspect of philosophy.

Besides, merely believing something does not constitute a religion...I
believe I'll wear shoes tomorrow, but that's not a religion.

But the[color=blue]
> absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Hehehhee[/color]

But absence of evidence IS a valid basis for not believing something.
Hohoho

[email]google@thenetdr.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> Atheism is a "religion" because they "believe" there is no God.[/color]
>
> A common but erroneous quip. Religion implies belief in a
> supernatural entity. NOT believing in such a thing places one, by
> definition, outside the domain of religion. Atheism is not a
> religion but one aspect of philosophy.[/color]

Since you "got it" the first time, let me say that philosophy too embraces
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." Belief in a God
(Creator, if you prefer) is not the only requirement for a belief system to
qualify as a 'religion.' The minimum requirement is adherence to a personal
set of institutionalized beliefs. Atheism qualifies.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Since you "got it" the first time, let me say that philosophy too[/color]
embraces[color=blue]
> "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."[/color]

Well, to be precise, SOME philosophies (including mine) do embrace
that, because it's logically true. Other philosophies deny the
validity of logic.
[color=blue]
> Belief in a God
> (Creator, if you prefer) is not the only requirement for a belief[/color]
system to[color=blue]
> qualify as a 'religion.' The minimum requirement is adherence to a[/color]
personal[color=blue]
> set of institutionalized beliefs. Atheism qualifies.[/color]

At this point, we're arguing definitions and semantics, at which point
I usually stop reading when it's other peoples' arguments. I disagree
with the definition you quote (or made up) above. Mine comes from the
American Heritage Dictionary at dictionary.com:

Religion:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers
regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief
and worship.

Atheism (to get into MORE semantics), is NOT a belief, much less a "set
of institutionalized beliefs". It is the ABSENCE of a belief in any
kind of deity (not just the Christian God). Claiming it's a religion
is like claiming NOT wearing a watch is a type of watch-wearing.