On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:49:10 -0700, Midjis <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On 14 Oct, 03:28, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >The closest we'd ever be able to get
>> Is right here - since atheists don't discuss God unless theists raise
>> the subject.
>'Right here'? No, come on, Al. You can't be serious, in a
>conversation revolving around religion, in a group
>(alt.religion.christian) that's based on religion, and another group
>(alt.atheism) that depends for its very definition on the concept of
>theism?
Yep. If theists never discussed their beliefs outside their religion,
alt.atheism wouldn't exist. What would we discuss?
"God" on money? It wouldn't be there.
Religious tax exemption? It wouldn't be there.
Blue laws? They never would have existed.
>> In a society in which the concept of 'atheism' makes no sense? Of
>> course not. Is there an alt.atoothfairyism?
>Bad example, really: the tooth fairy is a concept we're aware of,
>whether we believe in it or not.
But it's something little kids believe in. Supposedly sane adults
don't, and they don't try to get others to live according to their
toothfairyism.
>But otherwise you see my point. The very reason alt.atheism exists is
>because religion exists
Exactly - if theists kept their religion to themselves, atheists would
never talk about it. There wouldn't be any formal 'atheism' - sane
adults just wouldn't have god beliefs. Atheists only discuss religion
because theists can't keep it to themselves.
> ('religion', not 'deity'), and there are those who seek to oppose it or
deny it.
We don't deny religion - of course it exists.
> Not just those who're not religious
>- the atheists who just don't think about the issue that much. These
>are the ones who not only don't believe but have a need to tell others
>- especially the religious - about the belief they don't hold
Only when they tell us about it. If they kept it to themselves there
wouldn't be any formal 'atheism', any more than there's a formal
'aZeusism'. And there's your perfect example - those who believe in
Zeus, Odin and like gods don't tell us about them, so we don't respond
to them. Atheists only discuss the religion of those who bring it up.
>You say that atheists wouldn't talk about gods, left to their own
devices.
>I question that.
When is the last time you saw a post asking for evidence that Jupiter
(the god, not the planet) exists?
>> >Greek society pre-Jesus had a sight more gods than most people have
now.
>> But there were no people who discussed not believing in Jesus. Gods
>> are only discussed by atheists when theists bring the subject up.
>
>A unnecessary distinction, I'd say.
Just the whole point of the discussion.
> From an atheistic point of view,
>Jesus should be just another god. Your point that they weren't
>talking about Jesus doesn't do anything to address the fact that they
>were talking about lots of other gods
But atheists don't discuss gods theists don't bring up. If theists
didn't discuss gods, outside their own religions, neither would
atheists.
>Atheism does not imply a specific rejection of Christianity, but a
>general rejection of all religion.
No, it's only lack of belief. It doesn't reject religion or the
concept of religion. As long as theists kept their beliefs to
themselves, atheists wouldn't care what those beliefs were.
>> It's on point. Atheists don't sit around discussing the gods they
>> don't believe in.
>
>But you do.
Really? You've attended meetings of atheists in which I've discussed
gods?
>You've got a whole group set up precisely in order to do
>just that. Or was alt.atheism set up in response to religious
>crossposting to alt.atheism?
No, it was set up for atheists to discuss matters of interest to
atheists. Which included things like blue laws, teaching creationism
as a science ... things theists brought up. If theists kept their
beliefs to themselves there would be no need for alt.atheism.
>A discussion group has been created which supposedly rejects any input
>from religionists
Not true at all. Many who have been considered friends in alt.atheism
have been theists.
> (observe the frequent objections to religious crossposts into there)
There's a difference between a post from a theist and a religious
post. We have no objection to theists posting here - but it's just as
against the rules for a theist to proselytize, or to quote the Bible
for no reason but to quote the Bible, as it is for an atheist to do
it.
>But don't forget you've said if you're left alone you don't talk about
>religion *at all* - *only* in response to the intrusions of theists.
And that's true. If theists didn't make religious to alt.atheism, no
one would be discussing religion in alt.atheism.
>So while you're discussing whatever else it might be - which cars you
>use, or what movies you've seen (I imagine it must be difficult to
>talk about things like art, music, literature, politics and philosophy
>since you'd have to be so careful to avoid touching on religion) -
>you're still a group of people who define themselves based on the fact
>that they're not religious; collected together in a group labelled to
>indicate that it's full of people who define themselves as 'not
>religious'; and having to avoid talking about the one thing that you
>all have in common.
We don't avoid it - we just have no reason to discuss it. Do you
avoid discussing Ba'al?
>And let's be realistic - this is the point, isn't it? It's not just
>that you don't want to be religious. That's your choice and I'd have
>no objection to that. As I said, everyone has to follow their own
>path. The problem is that you don't want ANYONE to be religious.
I don't want to live according to anyone's religious beliefs. If
theists would keep their beliefs to themselves, no one else would
care.
>You've said yourself you want the religious types to shut up and never
>mention their beliefs.
Not never mention them - never try to force me to live according to
them. Whi9ch Christianity does in the US all the time.
> But why should they comply?
Because it's illegal? Because it causes problems? Because morons
shouldn't be in charge of enough destructive force to eliminate all
life on the planet?
>You don't have the *right* to demand that.
The Constitution demands it.
But you can only see it from a Christian viewpoint, so there's really
no reason to continue the discussion. If you ever grow up, let us
know, and someone will listen to your tale of woe.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in
horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has
sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you
ask me what
you shall put in its place?"
- Voltaire
|
