peppermill at my-deja.com wrote:
[> stoney at stoney.net (stoney) wrote:
[>> "M. McLeod" <mycloud at chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
[>>
[>> [>I missed that "atheism is a faith" bit the first time I looked.
[>Can't
[>> [>agree with you there. To have faith it has to be in something and an
[>> [>atheist believes in nothing. Therefore, while I may say atheism is a
[>> [>religion, I would have to disagree with how you have come to your
[>> [>conclusions.
[>> [>Nonetheless, it's still just playing with the language.
[>>
[>> Yes, you are. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, nothing more.
[>> The way you've got it phrased its like saying bald is a hair colour.
[>>
[>> [>MM
[>>
[>> Stoney
[>>Perhaps I am misunderstanding. From the posts here, I get the
[>impression that atheism is a strong belief that there are no dieties,
[>and that anyone who thinks the are, or might be is an idiot, moron or
[>somesuch.
People may hold a strong 'lack of belief, but it is not a strong belief.'
There is a critical difference. Some people get into 'sub-classifications'
of 'weak atheist' and 'strong atheist,' I can't be bothered with that. The
base is the lack of objective supporting evidence for deities.
I'll try and explain. I'm not feeling well today, so I can't be sure on the
clarity of the response. As always, feel free to ask questions. I understand
how you get the impression of things you have. I don't know what newsgroup
you're posting from, but you're only seeing the very tip of the ice berg.
You might consider lurking in alt.atheism, scanning the threads and take
a look. If you do, you might take special note of the point of view of the
thread originator. There are times where there is more heat than light,
and vice versa.
What position a person holds with regard to theism is theirs. However,
if they come into alt.atheism to proseletyze[sp], tell atheists they're immoral,
going to hell, this, that, and the other then they are going to get flamed,
and/or have their arguments demolished. What's happening here is the
theist is being shown the same lack of consideration and respect they
are showing atheists.
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard the above, plus the watchmaker,
plus pascal's wager, I'd be a wealthy man-monitarily. [I'm a wealthy man
in other more important aspects]. Proselytizing theists have a tendency to
utilize these old and fallous 'arguments.' Part of the response you've
illustrated is pure frustration of seeing the same garbage for the
'umpteenth' time.
There are many theists who are regulars in alt.atheism who treat atheists
with courtesy and respect. These theists are shown the same in return.
Discussions do go on about the aspects of various things. Note, these
are discussions and not conversion/insult attempts. The discussions
cover about every topic under the sun.
Other theists come into alt.atheism with honest questions. Their questions
are answered politely. Sometimes more questions are asked while other times
the theist meanders off with their question answered.
Most atheists were once theist. Many know "Holy writ" better than the
christians who meander into alt.atheism-especially those who come in to
attempt conversions.
In a nutshell, it is this:
If a person is religious, that is their private business.
It becomes other when the person brings it into
a public venue and asserts that others need to
pay attention to it, follow it, or the follower attempts
to codify their superstition into secular law.
I do hope I've answered your question. Questions, comments
are welcome.
Stoney
