Atheism

Trad Scout Australia · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 2

It could be argued that atheism is a semi-organised religion whose key
belief is that there is no god. It is a long established religion
that arises in opposition to the existing thesistic beliefs that a
particular culture has adopted. Its core set of beliefs is that the
theistic beliefs of the dominant cuture are irrational and therefore
should be mocked. From a sociological perspective, atheists have
their religious convictions, forms and structures along with a
particular set of belief patterns which has the characteristics of a
religion. All the actions of Atheists is to impose their particular
religious values on a broader community who may not agree with them.

Archived from group: rec>scouting>issues

Chimp · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

Trad Scout Australia wrote:
> It could be argued that atheism is a semi-organised religion whose key
> belief is that there is no god.

Yes, there is a rather feeble argument along those lines,
but it is not actually true. First, atheism is not even semi-
organised (a herd of cats is a more accurate description).

Second, most atheists do not "believe that there is no god",
rather they simply lack belief in any gods. This is partly
because many god-concepts are too ill-defined to comment
on. Most atheists would happily admit that there is plenty
they don't know about.

> It is a long established religion that arises in opposition
> to the existing thesistic beliefs that a particular culture has
> adopted.

Sort of, except that it isn't a religion by any reasonable
definition.

> Its core set of beliefs is that the theistic beliefs of the
> dominant cuture are irrational and therefore should be
> mocked.

Not at all true; many atheists do not like mocking religion
and don't do it. It is just that you tend to notice the ones
that do. If someone is a non-mocking, non-activist atheist
you might never realise.

> From a sociological perspective, atheists have
> their religious convictions, forms and structures along with a

No they don't. Any convictions are not usually "religious".
And what are these "forms and structures" of which you speak?

> particular set of belief patterns which has the characteristics of a
> religion.

Oh yeah? What are these characteristics of a religion,
and in what way do atheists exhibit them?

> All the actions of Atheists is to impose their particular
> religious values on a broader community who may not
> agree with them.

That is a flat-out lie. Most atheists in developed, western
countries support religious freedom.

Chimp

J. Hugh Sullivan · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 70

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 08:43:28 -0700, Chimp
wrote:

>
>Trad Scout Australia wrote:
>> It could be argued that atheism is a semi-organised religion whose key
>> belief is that there is no god.
>
>Yes, there is a rather feeble argument along those lines,
>but it is not actually true. First, atheism is not even semi-
>organised (a herd of cats is a more accurate description).

Of course one can argue anything. I am usually an example of that.

>Second, most atheists do not "believe that there is no god",
>rather they simply lack belief in any gods. This is partly
>because many god-concepts are too ill-defined to comment
>on. Most atheists would happily admit that there is plenty
>they don't know about.

I grant that might be how you and Emma think. I wait to be convinced
that is what "most atheists" think.

>> particular set of belief patterns which has the characteristics of a
>> religion.

>Oh yeah? What are these characteristics of a religion,
>and in what way do atheists exhibit them?
>
>> All the actions of Atheists is to impose their particular
>> religious values on a broader community who may not
>> agree with them.
>
>That is a flat-out lie. Most atheists in developed, western
>countries support religious freedom.

I wonder if that was a primary or a secondary defensive position for
"most atheists".

Hugh

Chimp · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 Chimp
>
>> Second, most atheists do not "believe that there is no god",
>> rather they simply lack belief in any gods. This is partly
>> because many god-concepts are too ill-defined to comment
>> on. Most atheists would happily admit that there is plenty
>> they don't know about.
>
> I grant that might be how you and Emma think. I wait to be
> convinced that is what "most atheists" think.

But Hugh, as you regularly admit, your current
opinion about how "most atheists" think is not
actually based on any evidence (since you tell
us you never encounter any atheists), but is just
a fanciful construct concocted as it suits you.

Chimp

J. Hugh Sullivan · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 70

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:33:52 -0700, Chimp
wrote:

>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 Chimp
>>
>>> Second, most atheists do not "believe that there is no god",
>>> rather they simply lack belief in any gods. This is partly
>>> because many god-concepts are too ill-defined to comment
>>> on. Most atheists would happily admit that there is plenty
>>> they don't know about.
>>
>> I grant that might be how you and Emma think. I wait to be
>> convinced that is what "most atheists" think.
>
>But Hugh, as you regularly admit, your current
>opinion about how "most atheists" think is not
>actually based on any evidence (since you tell
>us you never encounter any atheists), but is just
>a fanciful construct concocted as it suits you.
>
> Chimp
>
That is precisely what I said - I am awaiting the evidence.

I am going by what I see here at the moment. You and Emma are the only
two I see who aren't almost immediately dumped into the trash bin. The
rest are filthy-mouthed parrots, saturated with propaganda they are
incapable of understanding, and who draw absurd conclusions. Brian is
an exception to the "parrot" part.

Hugh

Chimp · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 Chimp
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 Chimp
>
>>> I grant that might be how you and Emma think. I wait to be
>>> convinced that is what "most atheists" think.
>>
>> But Hugh, as you regularly admit, your current
>> opinion about how "most atheists" think is not
>> actually based on any evidence (since you tell
>> us you never encounter any atheists), but is just
>> a fanciful construct concocted as it suits you.
>
> That is precisely what I said - I am awaiting the evidence.

Yep, but you also have a pretty secure opinion about
"most atheists" despite still awaiting any evidence. Wink

> I am going by what I see here at the moment. You and Emma are the only
> two I see who aren't almost immediately dumped into the trash bin. The
> rest are filthy-mouthed parrots, saturated with propaganda they are
> incapable of understanding, and who draw absurd conclusions. Brian is
> an exception to the "parrot" part.

Well, that might be how you see it (though I'm not sure
which bit of that Lee fits). Anyhow, you can be fairly
potty mouthed if you wish to be (though adhereing to
a taboo on certain words). And there is usually plenty
of un-understood propoganda from the theist side of
these issues (just look at the frequency of claims that
some bogeymen want to stop other people praying).

Anyway, on the subject of "most atheists" you do realise,
I hope, that the vast majority of atheists would not be
activist enough to even post on these issues.

Chimp

J. Hugh Sullivan · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 70

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:44:35 -0700, Chimp
wrote:

>
>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 Chimp
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 Chimp
>>
>>>> I grant that might be how you and Emma think. I wait to be
>>>> convinced that is what "most atheists" think.
>>>
>>> But Hugh, as you regularly admit, your current
>>> opinion about how "most atheists" think is not
>>> actually based on any evidence (since you tell
>>> us you never encounter any atheists), but is just
>>> a fanciful construct concocted as it suits you.
>>
>> That is precisely what I said - I am awaiting the evidence.
>
>Yep, but you also have a pretty secure opinion about
>"most atheists" despite still awaiting any evidence. Wink

Precisely your position on God...

>> I am going by what I see here at the moment. You and Emma are the only
>> two I see who aren't almost immediately dumped into the trash bin. The
>> rest are filthy-mouthed parrots, saturated with propaganda they are
>> incapable of understanding, and who draw absurd conclusions. Brian is
>> an exception to the "parrot" part.
>
>Well, that might be how you see it (though I'm not sure
>which bit of that Lee fits). Anyhow, you can be fairly
>potty mouthed if you wish to be (though adhereing to
>a taboo on certain words).

Everyone knows the words so, if not saying them is potty mouthed, you
and Emma would be equally guilty.

>And there is usually plenty
>of un-understood propoganda from the theist side of
>these issues (just look at the frequency of claims that
>some bogeymen want to stop other people praying).

we are discussing "most atheists".
>
>Anyway, on the subject of "most atheists" you do realise,
>I hope, that the vast majority of atheists would not be
>activist enough to even post on these issues.

Unlike many theists I think every atheist who has found rsi has
posted. Y'all run most of the theists off with your bullying tactics.
I knew I would get that in somewhere.

Hugh

Chimp · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007Chimp
>
>>>>> I grant that might be how you and Emma think. I wait to be
>>>>> convinced that is what "most atheists" think.
>>>>
>>>> But Hugh, as you regularly admit, your current
>>>> opinion about how "most atheists" think is not
>>>> actually based on any evidence (since you tell
>>>> us you never encounter any atheists), but is just
>>>> a fanciful construct concocted as it suits you.
>>>
>>> That is precisely what I said - I am awaiting the evidence.
>>
>>Yep, but you also have a pretty secure opinion about
>>"most atheists" despite still awaiting any evidence. Wink

>
> Precisely your position on God...

Not at all, there is plenty of evidence on the subject
of religious beliefs and gods -- most of that evidence
suggests that they are human inventions.

>>> I am going by what I see here at the moment. You and Emma are the only
>>> two I see who aren't almost immediately dumped into the trash bin. The
>>> rest are filthy-mouthed parrots, saturated with propaganda they are
>>> incapable of understanding, and who draw absurd conclusions. Brian is
>>> an exception to the "parrot" part.
>>
>> Well, that might be how you see it (though I'm not sure
>> which bit of that Lee fits). Anyhow, you can be fairly
>> potty mouthed if you wish to be (though adhereing to
>> a taboo on certain words).
>
> Everyone knows the words so, if not saying them is potty mouthed,
> you and Emma would be equally guilty.

But you often use put-downs that refer to excrement
or similar, whereas I don't think Emma does. It is
rather hypocritical for you to accuse others of
being "filthy-mouthed", when you do exactly the same,
but just avoid certain words.

Your attitude strikes me as similar to the Jews who regard
it as forbidden to press an elevator button on the Sabbath,
but will use an elevator that is pre-programmed to cycle
through the floors. It is a bizarre attitude to obeying
arbitrary taboos, while entirely ignoring any spirit being
the rule.

>> Anyway, on the subject of "most atheists" you do realise,
>> I hope, that the vast majority of atheists would not be
>> activist enough to even post on these issues.
>
> Unlike many theists I think every atheist who has found rsi has
> posted.

Your evidence for that being . . .?

Chimp

J. Hugh Sullivan · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 70

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:16:17 -0700, Chimp
wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

>>>> That is precisely what I said - I am awaiting the evidence.
>>>
>>>Yep, but you also have a pretty secure opinion about
>>>"most atheists" despite still awaiting any evidence. Wink

>>
>> Precisely your position on God...
>
>Not at all, there is plenty of evidence on the subject
>of religious beliefs and gods -- most of that evidence
>suggests that they are human inventions.

You miss the point - I'm awaiting evidence and you are awaiting
evidence. Thus our positions are identical in that we are awaiting
further evidence. In neither case do we have final proof.
>
>>>> I am going by what I see here at the moment. You and Emma are the only
>>>> two I see who aren't almost immediately dumped into the trash bin. The
>>>> rest are filthy-mouthed parrots, saturated with propaganda they are
>>>> incapable of understanding, and who draw absurd conclusions. Brian is
>>>> an exception to the "parrot" part.
>>>
>>> Well, that might be how you see it (though I'm not sure
>>> which bit of that Lee fits). Anyhow, you can be fairly
>>> potty mouthed if you wish to be (though adhereing to
>>> a taboo on certain words).
>>
>> Everyone knows the words so, if not saying them is potty mouthed,
>> you and Emma would be equally guilty.
>
>But you often use put-downs that refer to excrement
>or similar, whereas I don't think Emma does.

Again you miss the point. You said I was potty-mouthed even though I
avoided certain words - I pointed out that you and Emma don't say them
either so we are equally guilty. Your attempt at rationalization is
absurd.

I can't believe you think uttering profanity and filth is the same as
a mere reference. If you did you wouldn't abstain from using either
here. I know a number of very narrow-minded people who agree with you
however.

Do you also think that a female covering her strategic spots is as
nude as one who is nude? If so you would go nuts on the beach.

>It is
>rather hypocritical for you to accuse others of
>being "filthy-mouthed", when you do exactly the same,
>but just avoid certain words.

Ridiculous. References are often made in movies, TV, public speaking
and newspapers where the actual word would not be acceptable.
>
>Your attitude strikes me as similar to the Jews who regard
>it as forbidden to press an elevator button on the Sabbath,
>but will use an elevator that is pre-programmed to cycle
>through the floors. It is a bizarre attitude to obeying
>arbitrary taboos, while entirely ignoring any spirit being
>the rule.

Bull. Spirit of the rule is anbody's conclusion. The rule says nothing
about riding in an elevator.

>>> Anyway, on the subject of "most atheists" you do realise,
>>> I hope, that the vast majority of atheists would not be
>>> activist enough to even post on these issues.
>>
>> Unlike many theists I think every atheist who has found rsi has
>> posted.
>
>Your evidence for that being . . .?

The word "think".

Hugh

Emma Pease · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 22

In article , J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:16:17 -0700, Chimp
> wrote:
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>>>>> That is precisely what I said - I am awaiting the evidence.
>>>>
>>>>Yep, but you also have a pretty secure opinion about
>>>>"most atheists" despite still awaiting any evidence. Wink

>>>
>>> Precisely your position on God...
>>
>>Not at all, there is plenty of evidence on the subject
>>of religious beliefs and gods -- most of that evidence
>>suggests that they are human inventions.
>
> You miss the point - I'm awaiting evidence and you are awaiting
> evidence. Thus our positions are identical in that we are awaiting
> further evidence. In neither case do we have final proof.

So what are your views on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the
Invisible Pink Unicorn? Do they exist, not exist, or are you
withholding judgment? Some people use a 5 point scale

1. Entity definitely exists
2. I think the Entity exists but I'm not 100% sure
3. I'm not sure whether the Entity exists or not
4. I think the Entity doesn't exist but I'm not 100% sure
5. The Entity definitely doesn't exist.

I would put myself in 4 for a God defined as omniscent and omnipotent
but very close to 5. I hold the same for FSM and IPU but even closer
to 5.

Emma

ps. Oddly enough I've actually gone to services for the last two weeks and
intend to go again this week. Not because I'm suddenly changing my
views but because the current sermon series is on "What's right about
atheism". With a title like that I couldn't resist.

I should point out the sermon is given by a Christian Unitarian
Universalist (which makes him a conservative UU and a very progressive
Christian) and they are followed by discussion (fair number of us
non-theists present and participating).

http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/servicePSermons.html

Last week's service also had two very nice musical pieces with a
cornetto.

pps. The 100th anniversary World Jamboree seems to have gone off
well.

--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht

J. Hugh Sullivan · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 70

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
wrote:

>In article , J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:16:17 -0700, Chimp
>> wrote:
>>
>>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>>>>> That is precisely what I said - I am awaiting the evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep, but you also have a pretty secure opinion about
>>>>>"most atheists" despite still awaiting any evidence. Wink

>>>>
>>>> Precisely your position on God...
>>>
>>>Not at all, there is plenty of evidence on the subject
>>>of religious beliefs and gods -- most of that evidence
>>>suggests that they are human inventions.
>>
>> You miss the point - I'm awaiting evidence and you are awaiting
>> evidence. Thus our positions are identical in that we are awaiting
>> further evidence. In neither case do we have final proof.
>
>So what are your views on the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the
>Invisible Pink Unicorn? Do they exist, not exist, or are you
>withholding judgment? Some people use a 5 point scale
>
>1. Entity definitely exists
>2. I think the Entity exists but I'm not 100% sure
>3. I'm not sure whether the Entity exists or not
>4. I think the Entity doesn't exist but I'm not 100% sure
>5. The Entity definitely doesn't exist.
>
>I would put myself in 4 for a God defined as omniscent and omnipotent
>but very close to 5. I hold the same for FSM and IPU but even closer
>to 5.
>
>Emma

I am rarely without an opinion thus I would be a 4. The same question,
if asked about God, would really be interesting. Since we base it on
faith our answer might have to be "qualified".

>ps. Oddly enough I've actually gone to services for the last two weeks and
>intend to go again this week. Not because I'm suddenly changing my
>views but because the current sermon series is on "What's right about
>atheism". With a title like that I couldn't resist.

If I didn't read what any non-theists posted on this forum (save you
and Chimp) my opinion would be considerably different.

>I should point out the sermon is given by a Christian Unitarian
>Universalist (which makes him a conservative UU and a very progressive
>Christian) and they are followed by discussion (fair number of us
>non-theists present and participating).

>http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/servicePSermons.html

Lots of female Preachers and Rabbis I see. The Catholic and Baptists
are among the few that haven't rewritten the Bible.

>Last week's service also had two very nice musical pieces with a
>cornetto.

In all honesty I wish services were about 10 minutes preaching and 50
minutes singing the old hymns. And I enjoyed Sunday School when the
teacher (a doctor on call) would be absent and the folks would ask me
to go over the lesson.

>pps. The 100th anniversary World Jamboree seems to have gone off
>well.

I have not seen any reports. But I see no reason why it shouldn't.

Hugh

Emma Pease · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 22

In article , J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
....
>>http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/servicePSermons.html
>
> Lots of female Preachers and Rabbis I see. The Catholic and Baptists
> are among the few that haven't rewritten the Bible.

They have and use translations though and any translation changes
meaning. The Muslims do stick to the Koran being only valid in the
original language (any translation is consider a paraphrase and prone
to misinterpretation).

I think you'll find that most hospitals and universities have a
preponderance of female chaplains, the male clerics tend to be in
demand by congregations that insist on male clerics leaving the female
clerics for hospitals and universities. The Catholics have a male
priest at Stanford (a new one, he presided over a memorial service for
a colleague's husband a couple of weeks ago) but he is on the diocese
payroll not the university payroll. I think the Catholic chaplain at
the University hospital is actually female (but not a priest of
course).

>>Last week's service also had two very nice musical pieces with a
>>cornetto.
>
> In all honesty I wish services were about 10 minutes preaching and 50
> minutes singing the old hymns. And I enjoyed Sunday School when the
> teacher (a doctor on call) would be absent and the folks would ask me
> to go over the lesson.

Stanford also has a wonderful organ (actually 3 organs but only one is
played during the church service). We've had a good summer for music
as the in house string quartet has been holding free concerts.

>>pps. The 100th anniversary World Jamboree seems to have gone off
>>well.
>
> I have not seen any reports. But I see no reason why it shouldn't.

Slight overabundance of rain in the preceding weeks. Apparently the
English summer started and ended in April this year.

--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht

J. Hugh Sullivan · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 70

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 04:31:19 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
wrote:

>In article , J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
>...
>>>http://www.stanford.edu/group/religiouslife/servicePSermons.html
>>
>> Lots of female Preachers and Rabbis I see. The Catholic and Baptists
>> are among the few that haven't rewritten the Bible.
>
>They have and use translations though and any translation changes
>meaning. The Muslims do stick to the Koran being only valid in the
>original language (any translation is consider a paraphrase and prone
>to misinterpretation).

Of course I don't consider Muslims a religion in the US - or Buddhists
- or Wiccans - and UUs are borderline. All are "noseeums".

My best friend from high school days is a PhD in Theology and taught
Biblical Hebrew and Greek until he retired last year. He says the same
thing about translations. He was Phi Beta Kappa at GA Tech and had a
brilliant career in accounting (CPA) until he decided on Theology.

I am ambidextrous Cool

- literal when I want to be and interpretative
when I see things that need to fit better than literal.

I can accomodate when I see the need - but never just because others
see the need.

>I think you'll find that most hospitals and universities have a
>preponderance of female chaplains, the male clerics tend to be in
>demand by congregations that insist on male clerics leaving the female
>clerics for hospitals and universities. The Catholics have a male
>priest at Stanford (a new one, he presided over a memorial service for
>a colleague's husband a couple of weeks ago) but he is on the diocese
>payroll not the university payroll. I think the Catholic chaplain at
>the University hospital is actually female (but not a priest of
>course).

I only have one problem with females in that regard - the Bible says
"no" to women being leaders of men. Methodists excuse it because men
are not filling the positions and women are needed to fill the void.
The best Sunday School teacher I ever had was a female.

I guess I need to reread that section and determine an "out".

In a hospital scenario I don't think we need very much testosterone on
the job - women appear to be more sympathetic and caring.

>>>Last week's service also had two very nice musical pieces with a
>>>cornetto.
>>
>> In all honesty I wish services were about 10 minutes preaching and 50
>> minutes singing the old hymns. And I enjoyed Sunday School when the
>> teacher (a doctor on call) would be absent and the folks would ask me
>> to go over the lesson.
>
>Stanford also has a wonderful organ (actually 3 organs but only one is
>played during the church service). We've had a good summer for music
>as the in house string quartet has been holding free concerts.

I prefer woodwind ensembles - probably because I played in them.

>>>pps. The 100th anniversary World Jamboree seems to have gone off
>>>well.
>>
>> I have not seen any reports. But I see no reason why it shouldn't.
>
>Slight overabundance of rain in the preceding weeks. Apparently the
>English summer started and ended in April this year.

I was a late appointed co-chair for a camporee held here years ago. It
started raining Friday afternoon and quit on Sunday. I constantly made
the rounds of the troop sites and my "always up" attitude seemed to
have prevailed. I regarded it as a challenge to me. The paper
interviewed us and people still talk about it in very pleasant terms.
The other chair is my dentist, an Eagle with two Eagle sons (lawyer
and dentist) and all sit on the District Eagle Board at various times.

Hugh

Brian Westley · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 134

Eagle@roadrunner.com (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:23:52 -0700, Chimp
>wrote:
....
>>>>>>>> Anyway, on the subject of "most atheists" you do realise,
>>>>>>>> I hope, that the vast majority of atheists would not be
>>>>>>>> activist enough to even post on these issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unlike many theists I think every atheist who has found rsi has
>>>>>>> posted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your evidence for that being . . .?
>>>>>
>>>>> The word "think".
>>>>
>>>> Once again you happily hold views for which
>>>> you have no evidence.
>>>
>>> My views are based on my observations and that is evidence.
>>
>>Which "observations" tell you that "every atheist who has
>>found rsi has posted"? You've repeatedly told us that
>>you have no interactions with or knolwedge of atheists
>>other than on this newsgroup, so this seems, as usual,
>>a case of jumping to a desired conclusion based on
>>wishful thinking, rather than on observations or evidence.

>You are losing it fast, Chimp. If I have seen no atheists except on
>rsi then the conclusion I draw is obvious.

No Hugh, you're a complete moron when it comes to logic.

You have no way of knowing how many atheists have "found rsi,"
so you have no basis to conclude that every single atheist who
HAS found rsi has posted here.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Chimp · Joined: 18 Aug 2007 Posts: 16

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 Chimp wrote:
>
>>>> Once again you happily hold views for which
>>>> you have no evidence.
>>>
>>> My views are based on my observations and that is evidence.
>>
>> Which "observations" tell you that "every atheist who has
>> found rsi has posted"? You've repeatedly told us that
>> you have no interactions with or knolwedge of atheists
>> other than on this newsgroup, so this seems, as usual,
>> a case of jumping to a desired conclusion based on
>> wishful thinking, rather than on observations or evidence.
>
> You are losing it fast, Chimp. If I have seen no atheists except on
> rsi then the conclusion I draw is obvious.

If you have no interactions with atheists outside
rsi then the "obvious" conclusion is that you can
make no comment about how likely they are to
post on rsi. To go from "I only see atheists on rsi"
to "all atheist who find rsi post on it" is utterly dumb
and deluded.

If an atheist found rsi yet didn't post then you would
be entirely unaware of that person, thus non of your
observations would tell you how many such people
there are. That is why your views are radically
divorced from observation or evidence.

>>> That I may not have seen all the evidence does not prevent
>>> me from making forming a belief - just as you have on the
>>> non-existence of God.
>>
>> But you haven't seen _any_ evidence that would sensibly
>> lead you to conclusions such as "every atheist who has
>> found rsi has posted", nor that would sensibly lead you
>> to conclusions about the vast majority of atheists.
>>
>> Hint: there are tens of millions of atheists in the US;
>> the number posting on rsi is tens. What observations
>> do you have of those tens of millions? You've previously
>> told us that the answer is close to "none".
>
> None and that is precisely why I draw my conclusion - observations.

And, duh, which observations pertain to "atheists who have
found rsi but not posted"? Err, none. So your conclusions
are _not_ drawn from observations but from prejudice.

>>> I never thought you would be as far out in left field as you are on
>>> this thread. Something difficult must be happening in your private
>>> life.
>>
>> You think so? Hmmm. I find that theists often
>> get confused and bewildered when confronted with
>> a non-religious approach to morality.
>
> Your non-religious approach to morality appears to be that decency is
> not a consideration.

No, it is very much a consideration, but your posts
are just as "potty mouthed" and indecent as those
of those you deprecate. The fact that you observe
an entirely arbitrary taboo on certain words does not
change that.

Chimp

ATHEISM It could be argued that atheism is a religion whose key belief is that there is no god. It is a long established religion that arises in opposition to the existing thesistic beliefs that a particular culture

Atheism again (sorry!) Hi all, I haven't posted here for a while, what with being a new Dad and busy at work, but I have been lurking. Back in 2005, I posted the following on this newsgroup, in a long thread about atheism : "I honestly can't remember what I put last time I fil

Was Atheism Opppycock Thread Just exactly how much of an issue is this to UK Scouters? We have a thread, I'll not dignify it by calling it a debate, which has been initiated by merkins, and has opened URS up to all the usual merkin drivel that arises elsewhere. I'm dropping out of th

Volvo Trim Indicator Folks We have a Volvo outdrive leg and a trim indicator, volvo part number 828731 (square one) but no cable! its never been wired up in the boat Is anybody able to assist please with a connector to go into the back of the indicator and the wiring details.

White pointer attack in W.A. On the news they had the bloke who was attacked the other day. They interviewed his dive buddy who put the survival down to a shark repellent device strapped to his leg. Has anyone ever used these? How do they work? Pat