In article <3794a746.9820838 at news.meganews.com>,
stoney at stoney.net (stoney) wrote:
>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
>Thanks,
Peppermill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
