"Al Klein" <rukbat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:89d5h3tl4k5fnbdga7sdfm6lgfko0sj540@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
Then you would have to bring up the point that Ba'al is always kicking
J.C.'s butt in Stratego... <g>
(snip)
|
