Atheist morality

[DarkMatter]

The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
religion are not needed for morality.

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm

[Uncle Vic]

On May 30, 1:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> religion are not needed for morality.
>

Not to mention the fact that so-called True Christians (a label that
is harshly debated among Christians) are in the news on a daily basis,
caught red-handed in all kinds of acts which can be commonly (and
secularly) described as immoral. In addition to your point, this goes
to show that the application of religion, particularly Christianity,
apparently does nothing in the real world to prevent immorality.

--
Uncle Vic
2011

[Bama Brian]

Uncle Vic wrote:
> On May 30, 1:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>
> Not to mention the fact that so-called True Christians (a label that
> is harshly debated among Christians) are in the news on a daily basis,
> caught red-handed in all kinds of acts which can be commonly (and
> secularly) described as immoral. In addition to your point, this goes
> to show that the application of religion, particularly Christianity,
> apparently does nothing in the real world to prevent immorality.

Christians started the Crusades in Medieval Europe. American Christians
started the new Crusades in the 21st Century.

That such crusades are blatantly immoral doesn't seem to occur to them.

And where is bin Laden?

--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:38:02 -0400, Bama Brian
<***@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Uncle Vic wrote:
>> On May 30, 1:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>>
>>
>> Not to mention the fact that so-called True Christians (a label that
>> is harshly debated among Christians) are in the news on a daily basis,
>> caught red-handed in all kinds of acts which can be commonly (and
>> secularly) described as immoral. In addition to your point, this goes
>> to show that the application of religion, particularly Christianity,
>> apparently does nothing in the real world to prevent immorality.
>
>Christians started the Crusades in Medieval Europe. American Christians
>started the new Crusades in the 21st Century.
>
>That such crusades are blatantly immoral doesn't seem to occur to them.

If they think about it at all,they think they're forgiven when they
do bad.

But they don't even realise things like that are bad. Christianity has
replaced their natural empathy with "what God says" or more accurately
"what somebody tells me God says".

So they can't see good or bad in terms of the effect of their actions
on others. It now means "what God says is good". And they're even
rewarded for it.

"Kill those my mouthpiece on Death tells you are my enemies"

[pat on head] "there's a good boy"

>And where is bin Laden?

Where's Waldo?

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> religion are not needed for morality.
>
> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm

There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
God. Very simple, really.

[L. Raymond]

Jerry Kraus wrote:

> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

If I believe you're a smug, ill-informed idiot, what's my god? You,
idiocy, ignorance, pomposity or all of the above?


--
L. Raymond

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 30, 4:10 pm, "L. Raymond" <***@....com> wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:


> > There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> > God. Very simple, really.
>
> If I believe you're a smug, ill-informed idiot, what's my god? You,
> idiocy, ignorance, pomposity or all of the above?

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>God. Very simple, really.

Pretends the deliberately nasty pig-ignorant liar.

[sleepykit]

On May 30, 2:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> > religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> > comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> > only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> > religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> > Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> > reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> > fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> > religion are not needed for morality.
>
> >http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

So my friends and family are god... Hm, I'll have to go tell them
that. My husband's always wanted to wield hammers...

[Mike Russell]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus wrote:

...
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

Would you give a year and car model to an empty parking space?

If not, then that empty space is my atheism, an empty space where you would
place God, and the lack of a year and model is my lack of a God.
--
+++ No more appeasment - impeach Bush now +++
Mike Russell - mike.russell-home.net

[Enkidu]

Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1c5dfa41-521c-4cd8-
88f4-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

So the word "God" means nothing. I agree.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA




A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-Michel De Montaigne

[John Baker]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
>There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>God.

I believe you're an idiot, but I don't worship that belief.

>Very simple, really.

Yes, you are.

[p***@hotmail.com]

On May 30, 4:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> > religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> > comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> > only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> > religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> > Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> > reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> > fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> > religion are not needed for morality.
>
> >http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism".  Whatever you believe in is your
> God.  Very simple, really.

And what I do not believe in is not my god. Therefore, a- (lacking) -
theism (belief in gods). Atheism.

I find it astonishing that so many people are too stupid to understand
this simple concept.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!

[o***@inbox.com]

On May 30, 3:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism".
Of course there is.

Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's no
such word in the English language that means precisely what atheism
means.

If there's no such thing as atheism, then what word would you use to
say you don't believe in a God?

> Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

Should I even address your 2nd sentence?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:00:01 -0700 (PDT), ***@inbox.com wrote:

>On May 30, 3:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is no such thing as "atheism".
>Of course there is.
>
>Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's no
>such word in the English language that means precisely what atheism
>means.
>
>If there's no such thing as atheism, then what word would you use to
>say you don't believe in a God?
>
>> Whatever you believe in is your
>> God. Very simple, really.
>
>Should I even address your 2nd sentence?

Yes. With the observation that yes, he is very simple really.

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 30, 5:00 pm, ***@inbox.com wrote:
> On May 30, 3:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's no
> such word in the English language that means precisely what atheism
> means.

Oh, "atheism", in the sense "atheists" use it means "frightened,
arrogant, ignorant and hostile to all conventional religions".




> If there's no such thing as atheism, then what word would you use to
> say you don't believe in a God?

If you don't believe in God, you believe you know everything. God is
simply unknowable. In the sense most religious people use it.

>
> > Whatever you believe in is your
> > God. Very simple, really.
>
> Should I even address your 2nd sentence?

Can you?

[Pink Freud]

"Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1336997a-a47a-412f-8941-***@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 5:00 pm, ***@inbox.com wrote:
>> On May 30, 3:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's no
>> such word in the English language that means precisely what atheism
>> means.
>
> Oh, "atheism", in the sense "atheists" use it means "frightened,
> arrogant, ignorant and hostile to all conventional religions".
>

In precisely *what* way is you above comment not at the very least arrogant,
ignorant and hostile?

--

----------------------------------------------------------
Pink Freud, Dark Side Of The Couch
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I die, I want to pass away peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle
Derek, and not crying and screaming, like the passengers in his car."

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 31, 1:49 pm, "Pink Freud" <***@here.com> wrote:
> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message


> >> Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's no
> >> such word in the English language that means precisely what atheism
> >> means.
>
> > Oh, "atheism", in the sense "atheists" use it means "frightened,
> > arrogant, ignorant and hostile to all conventional religions".
>
> In precisely *what* way is you above comment not at the very least arrogant,
> ignorant and hostile?

I'm just stating facts. Why do they upset you?

[Pink Freud]

"Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6641d148-9cff-4ed4-ba74-***@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 1:49 pm, "Pink Freud" <***@here.com> wrote:
>> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>> >> Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's no
>> >> such word in the English language that means precisely what atheism
>> >> means.
>>
>> > Oh, "atheism", in the sense "atheists" use it means "frightened,
>> > arrogant, ignorant and hostile to all conventional religions".
>>
>> In precisely *what* way is you above comment not at the very least
>> arrogant,
>> ignorant and hostile?
>
> I'm just stating facts. Why do they upset you?
>
>

I'm not upset. I'm just wondering if you realise the irony in your above
comment. Do you?

Is it somehow ok to throw insults at atheists, to not respect them in the
way you seem to demand "conventional religions" have respect?

Just curious.

--

----------------------------------------------------------
Pink Freud, Dark Side Of The Couch
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I die, I want to pass away peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle
Derek, and not crying and screaming, like the passengers in his car."

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:17:27 +0000, Pink Freud wrote:

> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6641d148-9cff-4ed4-
ba74-***@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 31, 1:49 pm, "Pink Freud" <***@here.com> wrote:
>>> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> >> Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's
>>> >> no such word in the English language that means precisely what
>>> >> atheism means.
>>>
>>> > Oh, "atheism", in the sense "atheists" use it means "frightened,
>>> > arrogant, ignorant and hostile to all conventional religions".
>>>
>>> In precisely *what* way is you above comment not at the very least
>>> arrogant,
>>> ignorant and hostile?
>>
>> I'm just stating facts. Why do they upset you?
>>
>>
>>
> I'm not upset. I'm just wondering if you realise the irony in your above
> comment. Do you?

This is the same bonehead who said there's no such thing as atheism - do
you *really* expect he has the capacity to realize the irony involved?

[Pink Freud]

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2t2bh5-***@spankywork.localhost.net...
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:17:27 +0000, Pink Freud wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6641d148-9cff-4ed4-
> ba74-***@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 31, 1:49 pm, "Pink Freud" <***@here.com> wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>> >> Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's
>>>> >> no such word in the English language that means precisely what
>>>> >> atheism means.
>>>>
>>>> > Oh, "atheism", in the sense "atheists" use it means "frightened,
>>>> > arrogant, ignorant and hostile to all conventional religions".
>>>>
>>>> In precisely *what* way is you above comment not at the very least
>>>> arrogant,
>>>> ignorant and hostile?
>>>
>>> I'm just stating facts. Why do they upset you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not upset. I'm just wondering if you realise the irony in your above
>> comment. Do you?
>
> This is the same bonehead who said there's no such thing as atheism - do
> you *really* expect he has the capacity to realize the irony involved?
>

I thought maybe he was trying a little irony of his own, based on his false
assumption that questioning another's beliefs is "frightened, arrogant,
ignorant and hostile."
This backed up by his false statement that "I'm just stating facts", which
he seems to think atheists use a lot.

Since it seems he doesn't have the balls to reply, I guess I'll never know.
--

----------------------------------------------------------
Pink Freud, Dark Side Of The Couch
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I die, I want to pass away peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle
Derek, and not crying and screaming, like the passengers in his car."

[Mark K. Bilbo]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On May 31, 1:49 pm, "Pink Freud" <***@here.com> wrote:
>> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>> Even though God's existence is possible, still doesn't mean there's no
>>>> such word in the English language that means precisely what atheism
>>>> means.
>>> Oh, "atheism", in the sense "atheists" use it means "frightened,
>>> arrogant, ignorant and hostile to all conventional religions".
>> In precisely *what* way is you above comment not at the very least arrogant,
>> ignorant and hostile?
>
> I'm just stating facts. Why do they upset you?

Speaking of arrogant comments...

[s***@localhost.localdomain]

Jerry Kraus wrote:

> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

Oh mathematics doesn't exist type arguments? Please.

Certainly the lack of belief of God isn't a reason to be moral, but
the label given to the imperative necessarily brought out by a
reaction to those who do profess 'faith'. Evil tightquads.

Faith is delusional. Atheism is merely the recognition that faith is
a con, and the more those of faith are angry the more they must
know the truth; that they worship a delusion that says be
compassionate but can't because they know its a con.

Everytime TV professes faith (except in a historical context) I know
I being lied too.

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 30, 5:02 pm, ***@localhost.localdomain wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> >> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> >> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> >> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> >> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> >> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> >> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> >> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> >> religion are not needed for morality.
>
> >>http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> > There is no such thing as "atheism".  Whatever you believe in is your
> > God.  Very simple, really.
>

>
> Certainly the lack of belief of God isn't a reason to be moral, but
> the label given to the imperative necessarily brought out by a
> reaction to those who do profess 'faith'. Evil tightquads.
>
> Faith is delusional. Atheism is merely the recognition that faith is
> a con, and the more those of faith are angry the more they must
> know the truth; that they worship a delusion that says be
> compassionate but can't because they know its a con.
>
> Everytime TV professes faith (except in a historical context) I know
> I being lied too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

> Oh mathematics doesn't exist type arguments? Please.

So, mathematics is your God?

[chibiabos]

In article
<1c5dfa41-521c-4cd8-88f4-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> > religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> > comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> > only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> > religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> > Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> > reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> > fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> > religion are not needed for morality.
> >
> > http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.
>

Having a problem with language, are we?

-chib

--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rev. Karl E. Taylor]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
| On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
|> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
|> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
|> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
|> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
|> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
|> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
|> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
|> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
|> religion are not needed for morality.
|>
|> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
|
| There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
| God. Very simple, really.
|
Nope.

I do not believe you.

Very simple really.

BTW, gravity can not be a god.

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
~ http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <***@getnet.net>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
> BTW, gravity can not be a god.

Gravity was Isaac Newton's God. It was the basis of his great work,
"The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", which is a
summary of the Universe as he knew it. Gravity was the God of
engineers and physicists from the time of Newton up till Albert
Einstein and Relativity.

[Rev. Karl E. Taylor]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
| On May 30, 6:35 pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <***@getnet.net>
| wrote:
|> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|> Hash: SHA1
|>
|> Jerry Kraus wrote:
|> BTW, gravity can not be a god.
|
| Gravity was Isaac Newton's God. It was the basis of his great work,
| "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", which is a
| summary of the Universe as he knew it. Gravity was the God of
| engineers and physicists from the time of Newton up till Albert
| Einstein and Relativity.
|
Ooooo, nice try, but you're wrong.

Newton was a theist. Newton believed in gods.

I do not believe you.

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
~ http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 31, 3:18 pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <***@getnet.net>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jerry Kraus wrote:

> Ooooo, nice try, but you're wrong.
>
> Newton was a theist. Newton believed in gods.
>
> I do not believe you.


Well, actually, Isaac Newton was a Unitarian. I was brought up
Unitarian. And I really don't know what, if anything, Unitarians
believe in.

[DarkMatter]

On May 31, 8:55 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Gravity was Isaac Newton's God. It was the basis of his great work,
> "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", which is a
> summary of the Universe as he knew it. Gravity was the God of
> engineers and physicists from the time of Newton up till Albert
> Einstein and Relativity.

God itself is poorly defined. God can mean different things to
different people.

[Jerry Kraus]

On Jun 1, 11:43 am, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 8:55 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Gravity was Isaac Newton's God.  It was the basis of his great work,
> > "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", which is a
> > summary of the Universe as he knew it.  Gravity was the God of
> > engineers and physicists from the time of Newton up till Albert
> > Einstein and Relativity.
>


> God itself is poorly defined. God can mean different things to
> different people.

Of course. Which is why it is so very silly to insist emphatically
that one is an "atheist". It's neurotic.

[Mike Painter]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be
>> a reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the
>> argument fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god
>> and their religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

That sounds familar.
"What or whom I choose to be my God is my business. God simply means,that
quality which is most important in my life. Whether you believe it or not,
you already have your own god(s) and devils besetting you. "
-Pastor Frank

I guess if I don't believe in a god that is god?

[Mark K. Bilbo]

Mike Painter wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be
>>> a reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the
>>> argument fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god
>>> and their religion are not needed for morality.
>>>
>>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>> God. Very simple, really.
>
> That sounds familar.
> "What or whom I choose to be my God is my business. God simply means,that
> quality which is most important in my life. Whether you believe it or not,
> you already have your own god(s) and devils besetting you. "
> -Pastor Frank
>
> I guess if I don't believe in a god that is god?

I don't believe it.

[Mark K. Bilbo]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism".

That's right. There's nobody here. You're posting to an empty newsgroup.
And if you think there are posts in alt.atheism, you're hallucinating
and should get help.

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 30, 8:08 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <***@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
> Jerry Kraus wrote:


> > There is no such thing as "atheism".
>
> That's right. There's nobody here. You're posting to an empty newsgroup.
> And if you think there are posts in alt.atheism, you're hallucinating
> and should get help.


Do you find my concepts so disturbing? How flattering.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 11:56:53 -0700, Jerry Kraus wrote:

> On May 30, 8:08 pm, "Mark K. Bilbo" <***@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
>
>> > There is no such thing as "atheism".
>>
>> That's right. There's nobody here. You're posting to an empty
>> newsgroup. And if you think there are posts in alt.atheism, you're
>> hallucinating and should get help.
>
>
> Do you find my concepts so disturbing?

No, we find your cluelessness disturbing. Then again, since there is no
such thing as atheism and thus no such thing as atheists, nobody in this
group exists, so this must be your own personal subconscious telling you
it thinks you're an idiot.

[Jerry Kraus]

On Jun 1, 12:45 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <***@gmail.com> wrote:


> No, we find your cluelessness disturbing. Then again, since there is no
> such thing as atheism and thus no such thing as atheists, nobody in this
> group exists, so this must be your own personal subconscious telling you
> it thinks you're an idiot.

Well, you know, when people like yourself spout complete nonsense and
insist you have grasped some higher reality I do tend to point it
out. Sorry about that. Old habit.

No such thing as atheism. Sorry about that. Just the facts.

[Pink Freud]

"Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a9bfcc99-9632-4d96-b9b4-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 12:45 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> No, we find your cluelessness disturbing. Then again, since there is no
>> such thing as atheism and thus no such thing as atheists, nobody in this
>> group exists, so this must be your own personal subconscious telling you
>> it thinks you're an idiot.
>
> Well, you know, when people like yourself spout complete nonsense and
> insist you have grasped some higher reality I do tend to point it
> out. Sorry about that. Old habit.
>
> No such thing as atheism. Sorry about that. Just the facts.
>

I'm really curious... are you a troll?

If you're not...

Your argument is flawed, as numerous posters have pointed out.

This whole " 'god' is an undefined entity" thing really doesn't cut it.

"Physics is your god", "Biology is your god".... horseshit.

If a person says "Physics is my god", they are using the term as an analogy
to say "I'm really into Physics/Biology. It keeps me awake at night, I think
about it all the time, my life's work is involved with it" etc. etc.

This in no way means that the word "god" is indefinable. If you don't
realise this, you are ignorant and/or stupid.

By the way (assuming you have the balls to actually reply to my post this
time), were there any words in this post (aside from "god") that you felt
were ambiguous? If so, let me know and I'll try to help out. Maybe
alt.atheism can have a whip-round, and buy you a dictionary.

"No such thing as atheism". LOL. Are you really that dense?

--

----------------------------------------------------------
Pink Freud, Dark Side Of The Couch
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I die, I want to pass away peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle
Derek, and not crying and screaming, like the passengers in his car."

[Uncle Vic]

One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.
>

Wishful thinking on your part. Here we are, moron. We don't believe your
stories. We ask for evidence, and you reply with threats based on your own
beliefs. You claim we believe in "nogod", but that's a logical fallacy on
your part, since it is you who assumes some god exists for us to
disbelieve. To us, your beliefs are just someone else's religion, like
Islam is to you.

The first thing I noticed as a child was that lots of religions claimed
theirs was the one and only religion, and all the rest were wrong. Got any
proof yours is right and the rest are wrong? Or am I right in assuming
they are *all* wrong?

I eagerly await your evidence.


--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 30, 10:33 pm, Uncle Vic <***@withheld.com> wrote:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:



> > There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> > God. Very simple, really.
>
> Wishful thinking on your part. Here we are, moron. We don't believe your
> stories. We ask for evidence, and you reply with threats based on your own
> beliefs. You claim we believe in "nogod", but that's a logical fallacy on
> your part, since it is you who assumes some god exists for us to
> disbelieve. To us, your beliefs are just someone else's religion, like
> Islam is to you.
>
> The first thing I noticed as a child was that lots of religions claimed
> theirs was the one and only religion, and all the rest were wrong. Got any
> proof yours is right and the rest are wrong? Or am I right in assuming
> they are *all* wrong?
>
> I eagerly await your evidence.
>

Evidence for what, exactly?

[Uncle Vic]

On May 31, 11:58 am, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 10:33 pm, Uncle Vic <***@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> > > God. Very simple, really.
>
> > Wishful thinking on your part. Here we are, moron. We don't believe your
> > stories. We ask for evidence, and you reply with threats based on your own
> > beliefs. You claim we believe in "nogod", but that's a logical fallacy on
> > your part, since it is you who assumes some god exists for us to
> > disbelieve. To us, your beliefs are just someone else's religion, like
> > Islam is to you.
>
> > The first thing I noticed as a child was that lots of religions claimed
> > theirs was the one and only religion, and all the rest were wrong. Got any
> > proof yours is right and the rest are wrong? Or am I right in assuming
> > they are *all* wrong?
>
> > I eagerly await your evidence.
>
> Evidence for what, exactly?

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

--
Uncle Vic
2011

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 31, 5:38 pm, Uncle Vic <***@inreach.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 11:58 am, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


> Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
>

Actually, it is. Which is why I can recognize nonsense when I see it.

[Rick M]

On Jun 1, 4:35 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 5:38 pm, Uncle Vic <***@inreach.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 11:58 am, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
>
> Actually, it is. Which is why I can recognize nonsense when I see it.


Why don't you proof read your own posts then?

[Jerry Kraus]

On Jun 1, 3:41 pm, Rick M <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:35 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


> Why don't you proof read your own posts then?

Why should I? I'm not being paid for this. Just providing a public
service to cretins like you.

[Rick M]

On Jun 1, 4:50 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:41 pm, Rick M <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 4:35 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why don't you proof read your own posts then?



> Why should I? I'm not being paid for this.
Good thing, you'd starve to death if you relied on income from them.

> Just providing a public service to cretins like you.
I hope that my taxes aren't paying for this. Its a shitty service.

[John Baker]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:50:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 3:41 pm, Rick M <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 4:35 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Why don't you proof read your own posts then?
>
>Why should I? I'm not being paid for this.

Actually, you should pay*us* for reading it.

>Just providing a public
>service to cretins like you.

Well, a good laugh *is* always enjoyable...


>
>

[Uncle Vic]

One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 1, 3:41 pm, Rick M <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 4:35 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Why don't you proof read your own posts then?
>
> Why should I? I'm not being paid for this. Just providing a public
> service to cretins like you.
>

You'd be better respected by us "cretins" if you'd just keep your religion
to yourself.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.

[Uncle Vic]

One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 31, 5:38 pm, Uncle Vic <***@inreach.com> wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:58 am, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
>>
>
> Actually, it is. Which is why I can recognize nonsense when I see it.
>

Funny. Theists always call logical / reasonable arguments nonsense when
said arguments tend to prove religions false. I asked for evidence for
your god/religion. Yet I knew you'd dodge it, since there isn't any.
There isn't even a logical argument to support religious dogma - the
arguments presented are inherently circular, beginning with the assumption
that "God" must exist, then showing why it must exist, leading to the
conclusion that "God" exists. That's the circular part. The middle
section always consists of a logical fallacy, such as Appeal to Authority,
Argument from Ignorance, or Argument from Personal Incredulity. It may
even go as far as including a variation on the infamous Watchmaker fallacy,
or the 747 in a Junkyard fallacy. I've even seen bible quotes as an
argument for "God's" existence, which is again a circular argument, since
the bible is not proof of itself. Nonsense, you say? Religion is
nonsense.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.

[Jerry Kraus]

On Jun 1, 5:01 pm, Uncle Vic <***@withheld.com> wrote:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 5:38 pm, Uncle Vic <***@inreach.com> wrote:
> >> On May 31, 11:58 am, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
>
> > Actually, it is.  Which is why I can recognize nonsense when I see it.
>
> Funny.  Theists always call logical / reasonable arguments nonsense when
> said arguments tend to prove religions false.  I asked for evidence for
> your god/religion.  Yet I knew you'd dodge it, since there isn't any.  
> There isn't even a logical argument to support religious dogma - the
> arguments presented are inherently circular, beginning with the assumption
> that "God" must exist, then showing why it must exist, leading to the
> conclusion that "God" exists.  That's the circular part.  The middle
> section always consists of a logical fallacy, such as Appeal to Authority,
> Argument from Ignorance, or Argument from Personal Incredulity.  It may
> even go as far as including a variation on the infamous Watchmaker fallacy,
> or the 747 in a Junkyard fallacy.  I've even seen bible quotes as an
> argument for "God's" existence, which is again a circular argument, since
> the bible is not proof of itself.  Nonsense, you say?  Religion is
> nonsense.
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Separator of Church and Reason.
> Convicted by Earthquack.

Actually, renowned mathematician Kurt Godel -- famous for the
"uncertainty theorems" -- proved the existence of God. Religious
people don't accept his proof, however. They think God transcends all
logic. Therefore, the existence/nonexistence of God is not subject to
logical proof or disproof.

[Uncle Vic]

One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Funny. ÿTheists always call logical / reasonable arguments nonsense
>> when
>
>> said arguments tend to prove religions false. ÿI asked for evidence
>> for your god/religion. ÿYet I knew you'd dodge it, since there isn't
>> any.
> ÿ
>> There isn't even a logical argument to support religious dogma - the
>> arguments presented are inherently circular, beginning with the
>> assumption
>
>> that "God" must exist, then showing why it must exist, leading to the
>> conclusion that "God" exists. ÿThat's the circular part. ÿThe middle
>> section always consists of a logical fallacy, such as Appeal to
>> Authority,
>
>> Argument from Ignorance, or Argument from Personal Incredulity. ÿIt
>> may even go as far as including a variation on the infamous
>> Watchmaker fallacy
> ,
>> or the 747 in a Junkyard fallacy. ÿI've even seen bible quotes as an
>> argument for "God's" existence, which is again a circular argument,
>> since the bible is not proof of itself. ÿNonsense, you say? ÿReligion
>> is nonsense.

>
> Actually, renowned mathematician Kurt Godel -- famous for the
> "uncertainty theorems" -- proved the existence of God. Religious
> people don't accept his proof, however. They think God transcends all
> logic. Therefore, the existence/nonexistence of God is not subject to
> logical proof or disproof.

Right, it's just a belief.

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.

[Rev. Karl E. Taylor]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
| On Jun 1, 5:01 pm, Uncle Vic <***@withheld.com> wrote:
|> One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>
|>> On May 31, 5:38 pm, Uncle Vic <***@inreach.com> wrote:
|>>> On May 31, 11:58 am, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
|>>> Reading for comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?
|>> Actually, it is. Which is why I can recognize nonsense when I see it.
|> Funny. Theists always call logical / reasonable arguments nonsense when
|> said arguments tend to prove religions false. I asked for evidence for
|> your god/religion. Yet I knew you'd dodge it, since there isn't any.
|> There isn't even a logical argument to support religious dogma - the
|> arguments presented are inherently circular, beginning with the
assumption
|> that "God" must exist, then showing why it must exist, leading to the
|> conclusion that "God" exists. That's the circular part. The middle
|> section always consists of a logical fallacy, such as Appeal to
Authority,
|> Argument from Ignorance, or Argument from Personal Incredulity. It may
|> even go as far as including a variation on the infamous Watchmaker
fallacy,
|> or the 747 in a Junkyard fallacy. I've even seen bible quotes as an
|> argument for "God's" existence, which is again a circular argument, since
|> the bible is not proof of itself. Nonsense, you say? Religion is
|> nonsense.
|>
|> --
|> Uncle Vic
|> aa Atheist #2011
|> Separator of Church and Reason.
|> Convicted by Earthquack.
|
| Actually, renowned mathematician Kurt Godel -- famous for the
| "uncertainty theorems" -- proved the existence of God. Religious
| people don't accept his proof, however. They think God transcends all
| logic. Therefore, the existence/nonexistence of God is not subject to
| logical proof or disproof.
|
|
Absolutely correct, it is a subject of belief.

And with five simple words, I affirm my atheism.

I do not believe you.

Now, go away Jerry, you've failed.

- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
~ http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/

Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________

[Douglas Berry]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Jerry Kraus
<***@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone of
alt.atheism
>On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
>There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>God. Very simple, really.

This would make the San Francisco Giants deities.

Considering how they're playing tonight, I think not
--

Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein

[Mike Painter]

Douglas Berry wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Jerry Kraus
> <***@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone of
> alt.atheism
>> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to
>>> be a reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the
>>> argument fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their
>>> god and their religion are not needed for morality.
>>>
>>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>>
>> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>> God. Very simple, really.
>
> This would make the San Francisco Giants deities.
>
> Considering how they're playing tonight, I think not
So if I belive that are you my god or are the giants my gods?

[Jerry Kraus]

> >There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> >God. Very simple, really.
>
> This would make the San Francisco Giants deities.
>
> Considering how they're playing tonight, I think not

Well, perhaps they'll be deities again next week. Depends on how they
play, like you say.

[Eat the rich]

On May 30, 1:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> > religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> > comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> > only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> > religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> > Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> > reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> > fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> > religion are not needed for morality.
>
> >http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> God. Very simple, really.

Please give up this misguided argument. Science isn't a god. It's a
horrible argument.

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 31, 7:09 am, Eat the rich <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 1:54 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:


> > There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> > God. Very simple, really.
>
> Please give up this misguided argument. Science isn't a god. It's a
> horrible argument.-

Only to someone who has Science as their God.

[Witziges Rätsel]

"Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c5dfa41-521c-4cd8-88f4-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is
> your God. Very simple, really.
>
The definition of "god" does not include "whatever you believe in".
We Atheists know there are no gods, and if you think there are,
show us one. It's as simple as that.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:15:11 +0000, Witziges Rätsel wrote:

> "Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1c5dfa41-521c-4cd8-88f4-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>>
>>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>>
>> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>> God. Very simple, really.
>>
> The definition of "god" does not include "whatever you believe in".
> We Atheists know there are no gods

"We atheists" know no such thing, thank you very much. Don't drag us all
down to your level of fundamentalism; some of us prefer reason to
fanaticism.

[Tough Tonto]

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b33bh5-***@spankywork.localhost.net...
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:15:11 +0000, Witziges RÀtsel wrote:
> ...
>>> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>>> God. Very simple, really.
>>>
>> The definition of "god" does not include "whatever you believe in".
>> We Atheists know there are no gods
>
> "We atheists" know no such thing, thank you very much. Don't drag us all
> down to your level of fundamentalism; some of us prefer reason to
> fanaticism.
>
Please explain how you can be an atheist and not know for sure
whether gods exist or not, or whatever it is you think. If you're not
certain, then you're an agnostic. This isn't fanaticism; it's a realistic
and logical view.

[Tokay Pino Gris]

Tough Tonto wrote:
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b33bh5-***@spankywork.localhost.net...
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:15:11 +0000, Witziges Rätsel wrote:
>> ...
>>>> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>>>> God. Very simple, really.
>>>>
>>> The definition of "god" does not include "whatever you believe in".
>>> We Atheists know there are no gods
>> "We atheists" know no such thing, thank you very much. Don't drag us all
>> down to your level of fundamentalism; some of us prefer reason to
>> fanaticism.
>>
> Please explain how you can be an atheist and not know for sure
> whether gods exist or not, or whatever it is you think. If you're not
> certain, then you're an agnostic. This isn't fanaticism; it's a realistic
> and logical view.
>

Same as always: Atheism = Lack of belief in a deity.

I don't NEED to know for certain whether or not such a deity exists. It
suffices that I don't believe in one.

Even an agnostic, only believing what he has evidence for, logically
does not believe in a deity, therefor is an atheist as well.


Tokay



--

Don't drink and park; accidents cause people.

[Jerry Kraus]

On Jun 1, 4:14 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <***@gmx.net> wrote:
> Tough Tonto wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -

> Same as always: Atheism = Lack of belief in a deity.
>
> I don't NEED to know for certain whether or not such a deity exists. It
> suffices that I don't believe in one.
>
> Even an agnostic, only believing what he has evidence for, logically
> does not believe in a deity, therefor is an atheist as well.
>

How can you know for certain there is no evidence for a deity?

[Fred Stone]

Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:ad8df8b9-b25d-492a-
9ef4-***@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 1, 4:14 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <***@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Tough Tonto wrote:
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Same as always: Atheism = Lack of belief in a deity.
>>
>> I don't NEED to know for certain whether or not such a deity exists.
It
>> suffices that I don't believe in one.
>>
>> Even an agnostic, only believing what he has evidence for, logically
>> does not believe in a deity, therefor is an atheist as well.
>>
>
> How can you know for certain there is no evidence for a deity?
>

You got any to show us?

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken

[Tokay Pino Gris]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:14 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <***@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Tough Tonto wrote:
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Same as always: Atheism = Lack of belief in a deity.
>>
>> I don't NEED to know for certain whether or not such a deity exists. It
>> suffices that I don't believe in one.
>>
>> Even an agnostic, only believing what he has evidence for, logically
>> does not believe in a deity, therefor is an atheist as well.
>>
>
> How can you know for certain there is no evidence for a deity?
>

Because burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Any claim differing from the "null" has burden of proof.

So, I also don't need to know for certain that there is no such proof.
It is not my claim, so I need not provide the proof.

(Besides, I asked for this "proof". For ages now. And? Nada, Zip, Nil.)


Tokay

--

Don't drink and park; accidents cause people.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 14:36:52 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 4:14 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <***@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Tough Tonto wrote:
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Same as always: Atheism = Lack of belief in a deity.
>>
>> I don't NEED to know for certain whether or not such a deity exists. It
>> suffices that I don't believe in one.
>>
>> Even an agnostic, only believing what he has evidence for, logically
>> does not believe in a deity, therefor is an atheist as well.
>>
>
>How can you know for certain there is no evidence for a deity?

None has been provided.

You seem confused about how this works. There is no evidence until there
is. In science, knowledge is provisional, though most changes are likely
to be at the periphery. Claims about something are expected to be backed
up with evidence. Supporters of the idea that there is a deity have
completely and totally failed to offer any evidence that a deity exists.
Until they do, it is perfectly sensible to ignore their claims.

[Enkidu]

Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ad8df8b9-b25d-492a-9ef4-***@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 1, 4:14 pm, Tokay Pino Gris <***@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Tough Tonto wrote:
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> Same as always: Atheism = Lack of belief in a deity.
>>
>> I don't NEED to know for certain whether or not such a deity exists.
>> It suffices that I don't believe in one.
>>
>> Even an agnostic, only believing what he has evidence for, logically
>> does not believe in a deity, therefor is an atheist as well.
>>
>
> How can you know for certain there is no evidence for a deity?

Can anyone be stupid enough to ask this question?

Skippy, follow along here, and I'll explain it to you. Can you know for
certain there isn't a salt water crocodile ready to leap up out of the
toilet and bite your balls off? Well, we've never seen one in there,
never heard from a victim, never seen it on Animal Planet. Most of us
wouldn't worry about toilet crocs because there's no been no evidence
for them.

But you? You've got to worry, because you can't know for certain that
there is no evidence for such beasts.

Make sure you squat on the seat. Gotta keep your balls out of reach.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA







"The Bible has been interpreted to justify such evil practices as, for
example, slavery, the slaughter of prisoners of war, the sadistic
murders of women believed to be witches, capital punishment for hundreds
of offenses, polygamy, and cruelty to animals. It has been used to
encourage belief in the grossest superstition and to discourage the free
teaching of scientific truths. We must never forget that both good and
evil flow from the Bible. It is therefore not above criticism."
-Steve Allen

[John Baker]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:19:56 GMT, "Tough Tonto" <***@subby.com>
wrote:

>"Kelsey Bjarnason" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b33bh5-***@spankywork.localhost.net...
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:15:11 +0000, Witziges Rätsel wrote:
>> ...
>>>> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
>>>> God. Very simple, really.
>>>>
>>> The definition of "god" does not include "whatever you believe in".
>>> We Atheists know there are no gods
>>
>> "We atheists" know no such thing, thank you very much. Don't drag us all
>> down to your level of fundamentalism; some of us prefer reason to
>> fanaticism.
>>
> Please explain how you can be an atheist and not know for sure
>whether gods exist or not, or whatever it is you think. If you're not
>certain, then you're an agnostic. This isn't fanaticism; it's a realistic
>and logical view.

The terms refer to different concepts. Agnosticism addresses whether
or not one can *know* a god exists (or doesn't). Atheism addresses
whether or not one *believes* a god exists. While most professed
agnostics are also atheists, it's quite possible to be an agnostic
theist.

For all practical purposes, whether you choose to identify yourself as
an agnostic or an atheist is mainly a matter of personal preference.




>
>
>
>
>
>

[Virgil]

In article <MvD0k.1160$***@trndny05>, "Tough Tonto" <***@subby.com>
wrote:

> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b33bh5-***@spankywork.localhost.net...
> > On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:15:11 +0000, Witziges RÀtsel wrote:
> > ...
> >>> There is no such thing as "atheism". Whatever you believe in is your
> >>> God. Very simple, really.
> >>>
> >> The definition of "god" does not include "whatever you believe in".
> >> We Atheists know there are no gods
> >
> > "We atheists" know no such thing, thank you very much. Don't drag us all
> > down to your level of fundamentalism; some of us prefer reason to
> > fanaticism.
> >
> Please explain how you can be an atheist and not know for sure
> whether gods exist or not, or whatever it is you think. If you're not
> certain, then you're an agnostic. This isn't fanaticism; it's a realistic
> and logical view.

According to
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
the modern generally accepted meaning of "atheism" includes most, if not
all, of agnosticism.

The more rigorous anti-god interpretation of 19th century England has
softened.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:54:23 -0700, Jerry Kraus wrote:

> On May 30, 3:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
> There is no such thing as "atheism".

So, are you lying, or are you just pig-ignorant? Just curious.

[Syd M.]

On May 30, 4:35 pm, DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism.

Well, I don't know about it being a myth among atheists, but it does
seem to be a persistent myth among Christians.

PDW

[Bert Byfield]

> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It

That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
is that they are inherently RUDE.

> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> religion are not needed for morality.

Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
religion on strangers.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On 30 May 2008 22:22:03 GMT, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not>
wrote:

>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>
>That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
>is that they are inherently RUDE.

The main problem with Christians is that they are terminally nasty
personal liars.

>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>
>Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
>with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
>religion on strangers.

If they had the sense to keep their bullshit to themselves it wouldn't
be treated as bullshit.

Was that clear enough even for a sociopath like you?

[mike3]

On May 30, 4:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net> wrote:
> On 30 May 2008 22:22:03 GMT, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not>
> wrote:
>
> >> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> >> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>
> >That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
> >is that they are inherently RUDE.
>
> The main problem with Christians is that they are terminally nasty
> personal liars.
>

If you don't agree with the belief Don't Accept It. Plain and simple.
But when you start attacking the person, not just the belief, then
a line has been crossed. Same as when the Christian crosses the
line and does the same thing.

> >> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> >> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> >> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> >> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> >> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> >> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> >> religion are not needed for morality.
>
> >Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
> >with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
> >religion on strangers.
>
> If they had the sense to keep their bullshit to themselves it wouldn't
> be treated as bullshit.
>
> Was that clear enough even for a sociopath like you?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

See, and that's the type of rudeness objected to. You attack THEM, not
just their BELIEF.

But then again the Christian morally errs too telling people they are
not
worth heaven and will burn in hell for all eternity. So maybe BOTH
sides
are in the wrong...

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <a03462ed-59fc-4cef-bf36-***@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 30, 4:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 30 May 2008 22:22:03 GMT, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> >> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>>
>> >That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
>> >is that they are inherently RUDE.
>>
>> The main problem with Christians is that they are terminally nasty
>> personal liars.
>>
>
>If you don't agree with the belief Don't Accept It. Plain and simple.
>But when you start attacking the person, not just the belief, then
>a line has been crossed. Same as when the Christian crosses the
>line and does the same thing.

If somebody (in fact, lots and lots of somebodys) came on here and
argued for the existence of 3 headed, purple giraffes on the moon, acted
as if anyone who didn't agree with them was not only an idiot but
morally repugnant, and that anyone who couldn't see how obvious the
existence of same was doomed to eternal damnation, wouldn't we be entitled
to snicker and call them a fruitcake?

I.e., an "ad hominem" (sp?) would be entirely justified, nee, required in
that case. Further, if said fruitcakes ended up at the reins of power
(as has happened in the US), wouldn't we all be justified in considering
this to be of more import than a mere difference of opinion?

We see the claims for God (&etc) as being of equivalent value to the
claims for the aforementioned giraffes.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:53:27 -0700 (PDT), mike3 <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On May 30, 4:46 pm, Christopher A. Lee <***@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 30 May 2008 22:22:03 GMT, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> >> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>>
>> >That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
>> >is that they are inherently RUDE.
>>
>> The main problem with Christians is that they are terminally nasty
>> personal liars.
>>
>
>If you don't agree with the belief Don't Accept It. Plain and simple.
>But when you start attacking the person, not just the belief, then
>a line has been crossed. Same as when the Christian crosses the
>line and does the same thing.

Learn the difference between attack and reaction.

Here's a clue, you obviously need it: we don't have to put up with the
endless barrage of in-your-face stupidity. Nor the imposition of their
religion. Nor the bigotry towards those outside it.

And especially not the amateur-psychologised falsehoods they invent
rather than acknowledge that we are simply people in the world beyond
their religion who happen not to be any kind of theist.

Was that clear enough even for YOU?


>> >> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> >> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> >> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> >> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> >> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> >> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> >> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> >Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
>> >with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
>> >religion on strangers.
>>
>> If they had the sense to keep their bullshit to themselves it wouldn't
>> be treated as bullshit.
>>
>> Was that clear enough even for a sociopath like you?

Why didn't you address this?

>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>See, and that's the type of rudeness objected to. You attack THEM, not
>just their BELIEF.

No. I merely gave the response it deserved.

Think for a change instead of resorting to personal lies yet again.

>But then again the Christian morally errs too telling people they are
>not
>worth heaven and will burn in hell for all eternity. So maybe BOTH
>sides
>are in the wrong...

I don't give a shit what Christians believe. As long as they keep it
where it is appropriate.

And THAT is what you sociopaths are incapable of understanding.

[John Baker]

On 30 May 2008 22:22:03 GMT, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not>
wrote:

>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>
>That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
>is that they are inherently RUDE.

Perhaps if theists would stop being rude to us, we'd stop being rude
to them. Did that thought ever cross what passes for your mind,
Skippy?

>
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>
>Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
>with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
>religion on strangers.

And, by posting your religious drivel in an athiest newsgoup, that is
exactly what you're doing.

And what about the ones who want to force their beliefs to be taught
as fact in public schools? Or the ones who want to pass laws to make
their religious beliefs binding on everyone else? Didn't think of that
either, did ya, Sport?

There is *every* reason to be rude to the Bible-bangers - and very
little reason not to be.


>
>
>

[L. Raymond]

John Baker wrote:

> Bert Byfield wrote:

>>Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
>>with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
>>religion on strangers.
>
> And, by posting your religious drivel in an athiest newsgoup, that is
> exactly what you're doing.

Posting religious comments in *any* newsgroup other than one focused on
the religion of the poster is telling people their religious beliefs are
false, except in pantheist groups or really open minded pagans.

--
L. Raymond

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 19:49:59 -0500, "L. Raymond" <***@....com>
wrote:

>John Baker wrote:
>
>> Bert Byfield wrote:
>
>>>Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
>>>with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
>>>religion on strangers.
>>
>> And, by posting your religious drivel in an athiest newsgoup, that is
>> exactly what you're doing.
>
>Posting religious comments in *any* newsgroup other than one focused on
>the religion of the poster is telling people their religious beliefs are
>false, except in pantheist groups or really open minded pagans.

But Christians know they are right and exempt from that kind of common
courtesy.

It's sociopathic. Almost psychopathic.

[Pink Freud]

"Bert Byfield" <***@nospam.not> wrote in message
news:***@66.250.146.128...


> Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are
> false,

Why? Please enlighten me.


--

----------------------------------------------------------
Pink Freud, Dark Side Of The Couch
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I die, I want to pass away peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle
Derek, and not crying and screaming, like the passengers in his car."

[Enkidu]

"Pink Freud" <***@here.com> wrote in news:F210k.386$E41.38
@text.news.virginmedia.com:

>
>
> "Bert Byfield" <***@nospam.not> wrote in message
> news:***@66.250.146.128...
>
>
>> Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are
>> false,
>
> Why? Please enlighten me.

Sounds like Asshat logic to me.

--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA

"If the triangles made a god, they would give him three sides."
-Charles de Montesquieu 1689-1755

[Mark K. Bilbo]

Bert Byfield wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>
> That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
> is that they are inherently RUDE.

Or maybe this is Usenet.

>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>
> Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
> with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
> religion on strangers.

Dressing up a stupid idea in fancy clothes and calling it "religion"
doesn't obligate anybody else to refrain from laughing at your stupid idea.

[Syd]

On May 30, 6:22 pm, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not> wrote:
> > The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> > religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>
> That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
> is that they are inherently RUDE.
>
Well, there is a solution to that, ya know.. Stop being rude and we'll
stop being rude.
Of course, that's a step you lot are unwilling to take...

PDW

[Rick M]

On May 30, 6:22 pm, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not> wrote:
> > The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> > religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>
> That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
> is that they are inherently RUDE.
>
> > comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> > only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> > religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> > Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> > reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> > fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> > religion are not needed for morality.
>
> Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
> with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
> religion on strangers.


This alt.atheism. If there is a posting regarding the belief in a
god, then we offer our differing opinion. How is that rude?

[Virgil]

In article
<c880b4c2-03c0-429d-8a2a-***@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Rick M <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 30, 6:22 pm, Bert Byfield <***@nospam.not> wrote:
> > > The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> > > religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> >
> > That it is a myth has yet to be shown. But the main problem with atheists
> > is that they are inherently RUDE.
> >
> > > comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> > > only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> > > religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> > > Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> > > reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> > > fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> > > religion are not needed for morality.
> >
> > Whatever. It is rude to tell people that their religious beliefs are false,
> > with the possible exception of people who go door to door pushing their
> > religion on strangers.
>
>
> This alt.atheism. If there is a posting regarding the belief in a
> god, then we offer our differing opinion. How is that rude?

Also, one might consider that the newsnet equivalent of going door to
door pushing their religion is pushing one's Christianity in alt.atheism.

So that Bert himself justifies our "rudeness" towards him.

[Mike Painter]

DarkMatter wrote:
> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
> religion are not needed for morality.
>
> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm

That's nice but "do unto ohers.." seems to come from mirror and spindle
cells.

"But if the findings, published in 1996, surprised most scientists, recent
research has left them flabbergasted. Humans, it turns out, have mirror
neurons that are far smarter, more flexible and more highly evolved than any
of those found in monkeys, a fact that scientists say reflects the evolution
of humans' sophisticated social abilities.
The human brain has multiple mirror neuron systems that specialize in
carrying out and understanding not just the actions of others but their
intentions, the social meaning of their behavior and their emotions."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10mirr.html

http://thinman.com/empathy/

[John Baker]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 16:47:40 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>DarkMatter wrote:
>> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>> only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>> religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>> Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>> reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>> fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>> religion are not needed for morality.
>>
>> http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm
>
>That's nice but "do unto ohers.." seems to come from mirror and spindle
>cells.

It also appears to be something that most Christians preach but don't
practice.


>
>"But if the findings, published in 1996, surprised most scientists, recent
>research has left them flabbergasted. Humans, it turns out, have mirror
>neurons that are far smarter, more flexible and more highly evolved than any
>of those found in monkeys, a fact that scientists say reflects the evolution
>of humans' sophisticated social abilities.
>The human brain has multiple mirror neuron systems that specialize in
>carrying out and understanding not just the actions of others but their
>intentions, the social meaning of their behavior and their emotions."
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10mirr.html
>
>http://thinman.com/empathy/
>

[Ben Kaufman]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:35:30 -0700 (PDT), DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
>religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
>comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the
>only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the
>religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without
>Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a
>reason to reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument
>fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their
>religion are not needed for morality.
>
>http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/moralsource.htm

Cutting to the chase, since God is man made, as all gods are, anything he is
alleged to have said is also the product of man's ideas, and many of these ideas
were not original ones either. Atheists lack belief in gods, not men.

Ben

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 31, 8:04 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
***@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:35:30 -0700 (PDT), DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com>


> Cutting to the chase, since God is man made, as all gods are, anything he is
> alleged to have said is also the product of man's ideas, and many of these ideas
> were not original ones either. Atheists lack belief in gods, not men.

Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension. Which is
their limitation and their error.

[DarkMatter]

On May 31, 9:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension. Which is
> their limitation and their error.

True to know for 100% certainty that there is no God you kind of have
to be a God yourself.

[Virgil]

In article
<5685866a-f409-4bae-91e0-***@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 31, 9:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension. Which is
> > their limitation and their error.
>
> True to know for 100% certainty that there is no God you kind of have
> to be a God yourself.

But if being a god means one cannot be wrong, knowing that there is no
god prevents one from being one, at least in a logical universe.

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 31, 2:48 pm, Virgil <***@gmale.com> wrote:
> In article
> <5685866a-f409-4bae-91e0-***@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 31, 9:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension.  Which is
> > > their limitation and their error.
>
> > True to know for 100% certainty that there is no God you kind of have
> > to be a God yourself.
>
> But if being a god means one cannot be wrong, knowing that there is no
> god prevents one from being one, at least in a logical universe.

The Christian and Muslim Gods have the characteristic of
infallibility. Only the Christian and Muslim Gods.

[Uncle Vic]

One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 31, 2:48 pm, Virgil <***@gmale.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <5685866a-f409-4bae-91e0-***@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>  DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On May 31, 9:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension.
>> > >  Which
> is
>> > > their limitation and their error.
>>
>> > True to know for 100% certainty that there is no God you kind of
>> > have to be a God yourself.
>>
>> But if being a god means one cannot be wrong, knowing that there is
>> no god prevents one from being one, at least in a logical universe.
>
> The Christian and Muslim Gods have the characteristic of
> infallibility. Only the Christian and Muslim Gods.
>
>

The Problem With Evil pretty much wipes these gods off the logic
table.

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally
perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate
all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate
all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the
power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or
doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.

[Jerry Kraus]

On May 31, 11:51 pm, Uncle Vic <***@withheld.com> wrote:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 2:48 pm, Virgil <***@gmale.com> wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <5685866a-f409-4bae-91e0-***@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >>  DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On May 31, 9:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension.
> >> > >  Which
> > is
> >> > > their limitation and their error.
>
> >> > True to know for 100% certainty that there is no God you kind of
> >> > have to be a God yourself.
>
> >> But if being a god means one cannot be wrong, knowing that there is
> >> no god prevents one from being one, at least in a logical universe.
>
> > The Christian and Muslim Gods have the characteristic of
> > infallibility.  Only the Christian and Muslim Gods.
>
> The Problem With Evil pretty much wipes these gods off the logic
> table.
>
> 1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally
>    perfect.
> 2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate
>    all evil.
> 3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
> 4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate
>    all evil.
> 5. Evil exists.
> 6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the
>    power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or
>    doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
> 7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Separator of Church and Reason.
> Convicted by Earthquack.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're talking about the Muslim and Christian concepts of God. There
are many other theistic conceptions. Actually, an infinite number of
them.

[Fred Stone]

Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3d411cb6-143b-4370-ba16-
***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> You're talking about the Muslim and Christian concepts of God. There
> are many other theistic conceptions. Actually, an infinite number of
> them.
>
>

True. I believe in Eric Clapton. And my cat.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken

[Jerry Kraus]

On Jun 1, 4:58 pm, Fred Stone <***@earthling.com> wrote:
> Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in news:3d411cb6-143b-4370-ba16-
> ***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > You're talking about the Muslim and Christian concepts of God. There
> > are many other theistic conceptions. Actually, an infinite number of
> > them.
>
> True. I believe in Eric Clapton. And my cat.


Eric Clapton and your cat are your Gods. The ancient Egyptians
worshipped cats as Gods. Kept the granaries free of rats, you know.
Very convenient. Very divine.


>
> --

[Pink Freud]

"Jerry Kraus" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76606db5-a56f-4083-b023-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 1, 4:58 pm, Fred Stone <***@earthling.com> wrote:
>> Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3d411cb6-143b-4370-ba16-
>> ***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > You're talking about the Muslim and Christian concepts of God. There
>> > are many other theistic conceptions. Actually, an infinite number of
>> > them.
>>
>> True. I believe in Eric Clapton. And my cat.
>
>
> Eric Clapton and your cat are your Gods. The ancient Egyptians
> worshipped cats as Gods. Kept the granaries free of rats, you know.
> Very convenient. Very divine.
>
>

LOL

--

----------------------------------------------------------
Pink Freud, Dark Side Of The Couch
----------------------------------------------------------
"When I die, I want to pass away peacefully in my sleep, like my uncle
Derek, and not crying and screaming, like the passengers in his car."

[Fred Stone]

Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:76606db5-a56f-4083-b023-***@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 1, 4:58 pm, Fred Stone <***@earthling.com> wrote:
>> Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3d411cb6-143b-4370-ba16-
>
>> ***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > You're talking about the Muslim and Christian concepts of God.
>> > There are many other theistic conceptions. Actually, an infinite
>> > number of them.
>>
>> True. I believe in Eric Clapton. And my cat.
>
>
> Eric Clapton and your cat are your Gods. The ancient Egyptians
> worshipped cats as Gods. Kept the granaries free of rats, you know.
> Very convenient. Very divine.
>

It's always good to have a god which works for its living.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken

[Uncle Vic]

One fine day in alt.atheism, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You're talking about the Muslim and Christian concepts of God. There
> are many other theistic conceptions. Actually, an infinite number of
> them.

Which is the main reason I don't cater to any of them. They are
conflictive, even contradictory in nature, and many claim to be the One
True Religion. They can't all be right, but it follows that they can all
be wrong, especially in light of the fact that not one of them offers any
real evidence for these claims.

Why do religious people have such a massive problem with atheists? Why is
a lack of belief in any diety cause for distrust?

Why do you find it necessary to attempt to convert people to your religion
when even you cannot come up with a valid reason why yours is the correct
belief?

--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:30:34 -0700 (PDT), DarkMatter
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 31, 9:08 pm, Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension. Which is
>> their limitation and their error.

A standard Kraus bigoted lie.

>True to know for 100% certainty that there is no God you kind of have
>to be a God yourself.

What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idiot who is incapable of
grasping the real world beyond his religion.

What is it with you morons?

[w***@ireland.com]

On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 31, 8:04 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>***@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:35:30 -0700 (PDT), DarkMatter <***@yahoo.com>
>
>
>> Cutting to the chase, since God is man made, as all gods are, anything he is
>> alleged to have said is also the product of man's ideas, and many of these ideas
>> were not original ones either. Atheists lack belief in gods, not men.
>
>Atheists lack belief in anything beyond man's comprehension. Which is
>their limitation and their error.

You can discuss belief all day long and not prove anything. Belief is
not demonstrable in any manner. It's akin to some hocus pocus
assumption and not proof. And if it's all beyond man's comprehension,
how can you say there's a God? That's so illogical as to be comical.
Personally I'm somewhere between paganism and atheism - it's more fun.

WB Yeats

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Fri, 30 May 2008 13:35:30 -0700, DarkMatter wrote:

> The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or
> religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It
> comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the only
> valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion
> of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity,
> people cannot live moral lives.

But look what this says about the theist making such an argument. In
essence, what he's saying is, "I am such a degenerate asshole, that
without the threat of God and God's punishment, I would have no reason to
behave morally; I'd be out raping and murdering just for the fun of it."

Such sick, twisted individuals have absolutely no basis for claiming they
have *anything* of value to say on the subject of morality, as they have
none themselves.

Fortunately, we atheists *do* have morals, and don't need anything as
fragile as a belief in unevidenced invisible magic sky pixies to achieve
this.